Drama

[Shewz]

So, I just want to write this little story down.

Tonight I stumbled upon the Lguk King camp fully spawned and decided to camp it. I killed the kor shamans and the king PH and the roaming dar, as enchanters do.

Then Slappie, Sernity, Elisa, Nocte, Dravyen, and Autum show up, saying they wiped and that the camp was theirs.

I say, alright I'll give you the camp after just 1 king ph spawn. I figure, I broke the camp so I deserve the chance at just one ph. And they agree, except for Slappie who hassled me about it.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2aad6hj.jpg

And then the king spawns with a mithril two handed sword.

I start pacifying mobs, charming, generally soloing how an enchanter solos. I get a kor shaman down and then decide to zone to let me and my pet regen. I'm gone for all of 20 seconds, which I figure is okay since I'm clearly breaking the camp, and I had made a deal with their group.

I come back in and continue, and end up with the king sitting in the middle of the room, and my 5% hp pet left. I need to break charm and de-aggro the pet so that it can regen to full and fight king. Fact is, it's not possible to charm 1 froglok and kill both the shamans and the king all in a row. The pet has to be zoned so it can heal.

Again, I'm gone for all of 20 seconds. That's when they decide to kill my low-hp pet mob and steal the king.

It's pretty fucked up that they waited for me to single out the king before stealing it. Apparently Elisa was tracking me and waiting for me to slip up and zone.

Ensuing conversation
http://i45.tinypic.com/28iolxi.jpg

It's pretty fucked up that Slappie tried to pull that on me.

Anyways, Dravyen decides that I can roll on it against Autum. Of course, Sernity and Slappie want it to be 6 rolls versus mine, but that doesn't happen.

Autum wins and takes the sword. And then they graciously leave me the camp. Of course, judging by how honorable their actions were before, it was pretty clear I wasn't going to get the sword even if I won the roll.

So, expect to be stabbed in the back if you strike an honest deal with Divinity. And please, don't pull the,"a couple bad apples" line, because when 6 of your members all are fine with pulling this, chances are a big chunk of the guild is slimy.

[bullet]

I would have done the same only faster so you didn't waste my time.

Gotta grind them uselezz platz.

[Alienorg]

OK well rule 1
"hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp"
u zoned at least 2 times, we had a tracking in group tracking you.
If you have to zone to solo it then sorry but you can't claim it.
Nocte left before the killing of the king as should be on your list and we did give u a chance at a roll which we didn't need to according to the rules.
You didn't win so don't say we wouldn't have given it to you if u did.
And you can't really say anything about a guild as a whole, you should really just delete the last 3 lines.
All that being said, I'm sorry it went down that way, I was just there for the dps and wasn't saying much. Better luck next time.

[Alienorg]

Nocte left before the killing of the king as Shouldn't be on your list

[Hogwash]

the forty year old adolescents strike again!

[Shewz]

Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

[bullet]

Phat virtual leewts make people do stupid things.

+1 Autum. He can see through the loot code and realize it's true digital form.

[Agaron]

the forty year old adolescents strike again!

You can say you have a lot of good core members, but that was months ago. I've grouped with a bunch of crap members from your guild, and this deterred from me wanting to apply.

[Starklen]

DA. Not surprised.

[Agaron]

OK well rule 1
"hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp"
u zoned at least 2 times, we had a tracking in group tracking you.
If you have to zone to solo it then sorry but you can't claim it.
Nocte left before the killing of the king as should be on your list and we did give u a chance at a roll which we didn't need to according to the rules.
You didn't win so don't say we wouldn't have given it to you if u did.
And you can't really say anything about a guild as a whole, you should really just delete the last 3 lines.
All that being said, I'm sorry it went down that way, I was just there for the dps and wasn't saying much. Better luck next time.

When you wipe, and cr you lose the camp, especially if all mobs are up. So, Skewz had the camp, and that's a dick move to say it was theirs. Skewz could have kept the camp instead of making a deal to just take 1 more spawn. Typically if someone is hovering in my camp spot while I'm camping it I'd tell them to gtfo. You can only take over a camp if there's no one engaging mobs, and all the mobs are up. Making a deal that he could take 1 more spawn, then ninja'n it is the second dick move. I'd be pissed too.

[oldhead]

they had the camp imo.

You were wrong for forcing a bargin upon them by saying "I'll leave after one PH"

On the other hand if it were me being how you were pretty chill with your attitude I would have agreed to the one spawn to maintain good fellowship.

They were wrong in the fact that they agreed to your deal and did not stand by it but were honorable in letting you roll for the item. I believe they would have given you the sword had you rolled a win

All in all it sounds like Slappie is the major asshat in the whole ordeal. He sounds like a bad apple that should be watched for guild removal.

[YendorLootmonkey]

So, original group zones (yes, they're on CR, but the fact remains they zone and are not at camp for X amt of time because they could not hold the camp) and then camp isn't theirs.

OP zones (and not at camp for Y amt of time, because OP technically couldn't hold the camp either), camp is still OPs?

[Phallax]

When you wipe, and cr you lose the camp, especially if all mobs are up. So, Skewz had the camp, and that's a dick move to say it was theirs. Skewz could have kept the camp instead of making a deal to just take 1 more spawn. Typically if someone is hovering in my camp spot while I'm camping it I'd tell them to gtfo. You can only take over a camp if there's no one engaging mobs, and all the mobs are up. Making a deal that he could take 1 more spawn, then ninja'n it is the second dick move. I'd be pissed too.

Whos Skewz?!

This whole post should have never happened, they died, they lost the camp. Trying to bully your way back into the camp, you supposedly died at, is a dick move to start with, not to even mention the whole letting him clear it all till king +1 is left. Double dick move on your part here.

[guineapig]

. You can only take over a camp if there's no one engaging mobs, and all the mobs are up.

I think the point was that he was given at least 2 chances but kept zoning out. In other words despite the fact that he left the camp they still let him try again, and then again. Third time they took it.

That's way more than most other people in Lguk would do.

Despite all that he was given the item in the end which is even more rare.

[Agaron]

So, original group zones (yes, they're on CR, but the fact remains they zone and are not at camp for X amt of time because they could not hold the camp) and then camp isn't theirs.

OP zones (and not at camp for Y amt of time, because OP technically couldn't hold the camp either), camp is still OPs?

But they made a deal that he could have 1 more spawn, regardless if he zones or not, which case it was the named with item, and they decided to ninja it aka making them assholes.

[guineapig]

But they made a deal that he could have 1 more spawn, regardless if he zones or not, which case it was the named with item, and they decided to ninja it aka making them assholes.

Zoning had nothing to do with the deal from what I gather. how are they supposed to know that he will keep coming back over and over again?
And like I said he got the item in the end anyway. Even after a roll for it that he agreed to. How often do you see that from so called "dicks"?

[Agaron]

I think the point was that he was given at least 2 chances but kept zoning out. In other words despite the fact that he left the camp they still let him try again, and then again. Third time they took it.

That's way more than most other people in Lguk would do.

Despite all that he was given the item in the end which is even more rare.

That's about the equivalent if someone is kiting a camp, and I walk into the camp and see mobs gone, and claim it, because no one is there at said time. I'd wait till mobs fully spawn before I claim it, because you can't assume someone isn't engaging a camp regardless if they zone. If you make a deal stick to it, or else you should have just taken it the same way he took it from you. Seeing a mob with loot, and jacking it is a dick move. You should have just let him lose the camp the same way you did on the cr, instead of making a deal.

P.S. I love how I got the deny from this rnf thread. Lol.

http://i45.tinypic.com/160yh34.jpg

[Phallax]

Zoning had nothing to do with the deal from what I gather. how are they supposed to know that he will keep coming back over and over again?


Because thats how an enchanter solos the camp...everyone knows this.

[guineapig]

Because thats how an enchanter solos the camp...everyone knows this.

Last thing I will say about this:

Read the camping rules...


(and chanter has the stupid sword... probably to sell for plat)

[Agaron]

Zoning had nothing to do with the deal from what I gather. how are they supposed to know that he will keep coming back over and over again?
And like I said he got the item in the end anyway. Even after a roll for it that he agreed to. How often do you see that from so called "dicks"?

Skewz could have simply said I died and I'm not coming back, or I'm giving up, or you could have asked if Skewz was done attempting at mob? I guess a /t is too hard to do?

Looks like item was given after this thread was made. Did the rep thing make them give in? Darn recruits. Lol.

[Phallax]

Last thing I will say about this:

Read the camping rules...


(and chanter has the stupid sword... probably to sell for plat)

Im very aware of the camp rules. Maybe the group should have read the camp rules before trying to bully their way into the spawn in the first place? Shewz had it fair and square and they bullied their way in. This really has nothing to do with anything after that fact.

[guineapig]

Last thing I will say about this:

Read the camping rules...


(and chanter has the stupid sword... probably to sell for plat)

Skewz could have simply said I died and I'm not coming back, or I'm giving up, or you could have asked if Skewz was done attempting at mob? I guess a /t is too hard to do?

Looks like item was given after this thread was made. Did the rep thing make them give in? Darn recruits. Lol.

/yawn

[Phallax]

Yea Agaron, guilds take RnF far to serious to deny apps over it. Apparently the weak guilds cant handle any pressure or criticism. Sad.

[Agaron]

Yea Agaron, guilds take RnF far to serious to deny apps over it. Apparently the weak guilds cant handle any pressure or criticism. Sad.

I guess I'm not allowed to say someone is shit in rnf if they're shit. It makes Div look bad, yet people like President can run their mouth in rnf all day long, and it's a.o.k.

Then when you say anything bad about said guild you get the pussy on the pedestal comments like this.

the forty year old adolescents strike again!

Your shit can stink bro, especially if you let in garbage recruits. That entire group is formed of them, or do I have to pull a ss from your forum of apps in?

After you guys booted Tralina, one of the nicest chicks on server for some bs reason, and after you let in so much garbage recently I could see why anyone would be weary of joining.

[astarothel]

after you let in so much garbage recently I could see why anyone would be weary of joining.

That didn't hold you back from sending your app in now then, did it?

[Alawen Everywhere]

I'm confused by this whole thread. It sounds like the group wiped, leaving the camp open for the soloist to take over. Then it sounds like the soloist had to either zone or camp, leaving the camp open for the group to take back. In my opinion, the group was generous to give him a roll on the sword.

The OP seems to want to twist the rules to his advantage in both situations. He'll fit right into the raid scene.

[soup]

I'm confused by this whole thread. It sounds like the group wiped, leaving the camp open for the soloist to take over. Then it sounds like the soloist had to either zone or camp, leaving the camp open for the group to take back. In my opinion, the group was generous to give him a roll on the sword.

The OP seems to want to twist the rules to his advantage in both situations. He'll fit right into the raid scene.

They made a deal to let him solo one spawn. Zoning the pet is part of an enchanter soloing the spawn. Therefore, they made a deal then attempted to just void it for some loot. They didn't say "We'll let you solo a spawn, but you can't zone at any point!"

I love how people act like it's impossible to act like a raging douche bag as long as you're in compliance with the rules.

[Agaron]

I'm confused by this whole thread. It sounds like the group wiped, leaving the camp open for the soloist to take over. Then it sounds like the soloist had to either zone or camp, leaving the camp open for the group to take back. In my opinion, the group was generous to give him a roll on the sword.

The OP seems to want to twist the rules to his advantage in both situations. He'll fit right into the raid scene.

You forgot that they made a deal that he could kill 1 more ph spawn mob, which was the named mob with said item, but that item influenced the deal.

You're old and ugly. You should get out of the raid scene, and go hit a spa or something.

[Agaron]

That didn't hold you back from sending your app in now then, did it?

I regret it now. I kind of figured they'd pull an asshat move like that, but that just verified it. I like some of their members, but some suck imo. Can't like everyone. ;)

[Alawen Everywhere]

If I'd been there, I'd think leaving the zone voided the deal as well. If that's how enchanters solo that camp, that fits right into the definition of inability to hold a camp. It also sounds like they gave him the sword after this bitchfest.

Nice attempt to take a shot at me, totally original and clever! I'm sorry you feel so insecure about your own appearance. I've been good looking all of my life. I didn't even have acne as a teenager. Let me guess--short, pudgy, muddy brown eyes, bad skin, straight greasy hair? Sorry man. I'm sure you have some other good qualities... maybe you're really loyal to your friends or something?

[soup]

If I'd been there, I'd think leaving the zone voided the deal as well. If that's how enchanters solo that camp, that fits right into the definition of inability to hold a camp. It also sounds like they gave him the sword after this bitchfest.

Nice attempt to take a shot at me, totally original and clever! I'm sorry you feel so insecure about your own appearance. I've been good looking all of my life. I didn't even have acne as a teenager. Let me guess--short, pudgy, muddy brown eyes, bad skin, straight greasy hair? Sorry man. I'm sure you have some other good qualities... maybe you're really loyal to your friends or something?

Once again, back to acting like the rules dictate what is or isn't douche baggery.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Once again, back to acting like the rules dictate what is or isn't douche baggery.

But it wasn't douche baggery for the enchanter to pull the rules out against the group who had wiped? I just don't understand why one side is more right than the other.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Here's what I get out of this:

1) Group can't hold camp and wipes.

2) Enchanter starts soloing camp.

3) Group comes back, angry with enchanter for taking camp, which is rightfully the enchanters at THIS POINT.

4) Enchanter threatens Dravyen that he will camp there all night if they don't let him have 1 more PH spawn, group forced to give in to ultimatum because it's the only option that yields them the camp anytime soon. (see the first screenshot the OP posted for this "deal", which was really an ultimatum.)

5) Enchanter zones because he can't hold camp. I don't care if that's how enchanters "gotta do it". OP left camp for whatever reason, which is the SAME REASON he was able to rightfully take the camp from the group when they left the camp, described in (3).

6) Now the camp belongs to the group. As Alawen said above, that deal/ultimatum is now void at this point because the OP no longer holds the camp.

7) Somehow, for some reason, after the OP tries to twist the camping rules in his favor in both instances, group still gives him the sword, presumably to avoid further drama even though the OP did not own the camp at the point described in (5).

8) OP owes the group back their sword for bullying them with an ultimatum, and then losing the camp back to them when he zoned for whatever reason because he was unable to hold the camp with his 5% health pet, just as he justified taking their camp when they were unable to hold the camp with their 0% health group members.

[Barkingturtle]

Why not just kill your 5% pet and charm a new one? Or mez/memblur? Anything seems better than zoning.

[soup]

But it wasn't douche baggery for the enchanter to pull the rules out against the group who had wiped? I just don't understand why one side is more right than the other.

So when was the enchanter a douche bag? When he split a fully spawned camp? No, not there. Was it when a group comes up and tells him the camp he just split is theirs? No, wasn't there. Was it when he offered to give them the camp after the next king/PH spawn? Nope, that wasn't it. Was it when the other group AGREED to that offer? Nope. Was it when he clarity and hasted their group? Nope.

Not really seeing where he was a douche bag.

[guineapig]

What kills me is that Divinity members go above and beyond so often in this game yet the one time that some members merely follow the rules and go no further we are treated like monsters...

[soup]

I really don't understand why everyone thinks taking 30 seconds to zone out and in to a zone should just completely negate any work you've done splitting a camp and just make it a free for all to claim it.

So do you lose a camp if you kite mobs away if that's how you fight them? So then what is the arbitrary distance you can't exceed to keep the camp? Or how about the details of how you solo the camp isn't relevant as long as you do it in a timely manner?

[YendorLootmonkey]

I really don't understand why everyone thinks taking 30 seconds to zone out and in to a zone should just completely negate any work you've done splitting a camp and just make it a free for all to claim it.

From http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2653 which is the ruleset we have to mediate these kinds of disputes among ourselves:

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp.

4. In order to hold a camp, the player or group must be able to demonstrate the ability to hold the camp without further help.

Enchanter had the claim to the camp after the group wiped due to these server rule. Enchanter did not have the claim to the camp after he zoned due to the SAME RULES.

So do you lose a camp if you kite mobs away if that's how you fight them? So then what is the arbitrary distance you can't exceed to keep the camp? Or how about the details of how you solo the camp isn't relevant as long as you do it in a timely manner?

So then what is the arbitrary time duration you can't exceed to keep the camp?

In an outdoors setting, if you're kiting shit and you can't handle it and have to zone, you demonstrate an inability to hold the camp, so yes, you lose that camp. And based on the first rule quoted above, yes you probably should be kiting in the general vicinity of that camp to demonstrate your "presence".

Zoning is zoning. It is the end all and be all of leaving the camp. You not only left the camp because you couldn't keep it, you left the ZONE because you couldn't keep it. I think that's pretty damn black and white. You cannot argue you have a "presence" at any camp in the zone if you are NO LONGER IN THE ZONE.

[Agaron]

What kills me is that Divinity members go above and beyond so often in this game yet the one time that some members merely follow the rules and go no further we are treated like monsters...

See, now you're pulling the prestine card again. At least 5 if not all 6 of those names listed are new recruits, and I highly doubt you've watched them group in pug groups to see what they're like. The OP simply posted what a "dick" move they pulled, and then making a deal and breaking it is another "dick" move.

Here I'll highlight for you people unable to read.

So, I just want to write this little story down.

Tonight I stumbled upon the Lguk King camp fully spawned and decided to camp it. I killed the kor shamans and the king PH and the roaming dar, as enchanters do.

Then Slappie, Sernity, Elisa, Nocte, Dravyen, and Autum show up, saying they wiped and that the camp was theirs.

I say, alright I'll give you the camp after just 1 king ph spawn. I figure, I broke the camp so I deserve the chance at just one ph. And they agree, except for Slappie who hassled me about it.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2aad6hj.jpg

And then the king spawns with a mithril two handed sword.

I start pacifying mobs, charming, generally soloing how an enchanter solos. I get a kor shaman down and then decide to zone to let me and my pet regen. I'm gone for all of 20 seconds, which I figure is okay since I'm clearly breaking the camp, and I had made a deal with their group.

I come back in and continue, and end up with the king sitting in the middle of the room, and my 5% hp pet left. I need to break charm and de-aggro the pet so that it can regen to full and fight king. Fact is, it's not possible to charm 1 froglok and kill both the shamans and the king all in a row. The pet has to be zoned so it can heal.

Again, I'm gone for all of 20 seconds. That's when they decide to kill my low-hp pet mob and steal the king.

It's pretty fucked up that they waited for me to single out the king before stealing it. Apparently Elisa was tracking me and waiting for me to slip up and zone.

Ensuing conversation
http://i45.tinypic.com/28iolxi.jpg

It's pretty fucked up that Slappie tried to pull that on me.

Anyways, Dravyen decides that I can roll on it against Autum. Of course, Sernity and Slappie want it to be 6 rolls versus mine, but that doesn't happen.

Autum wins and takes the sword. And then they graciously leave me the camp. (Hmm... wonder what they wanted? Oh right, they ninja'd it.) Of course, judging by how honorable their actions were before, it was pretty clear I wasn't going to get the sword even if I won the roll.

So, expect to be stabbed in the back if you strike an honest deal with Divinity. And please, don't pull the,"a couple bad apples" line, because when 6 of your members all are fine with pulling this, chances are a big chunk of the guild is slimy.

[soup]

From http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2653 which is the ruleset we have to mediate these kinds of disputes among ourselves:





Enchanter had the claim to the camp after the group wiped due to these server rule. Enchanter did not have the claim to the camp after he zoned due to the SAME RULES.



So then what is the arbitrary time duration you can't exceed to keep the camp?

In an outdoors setting, if you're kiting shit and you can't handle it and have to zone, you demonstrate an inability to hold the camp, so yes, you lose that camp. And based on the first rule quoted above, yes you probably should be kiting in the general vicinity of that camp to demonstrate your "presence".

Zoning is zoning. It is the end all and be all of leaving the camp. You not only left the camp because you couldn't keep it, you left the ZONE because you couldn't keep it. I think that's pretty damn black and white. You cannot argue you have a "presence" at any camp in the zone if you are NO LONGER IN THE ZONE.It sounds like you don't even know WHY he zoned rofl

The enchanter doesn't zone because he cant hold the camp or needs to get some mob off him or whatever, it's because his charmed pet is low HP and by zoning it regens rapidly to full. It has nothing to do with an inability to hold the camp. It's only abouth efficiency. He could have sat there letting the mob slowly regen up while sitting at the camp, but that would take much longer, and he has people waiting in line who made a deal for the camp after him, so speeding it up helps everyone, right? Oh, guess not, because people are douche bags and think zoning is like going to another planet or something.

As far as the zoning argument, say I am camping Gynok in Befallen. Say I have just killed the PH a couple minutes ago, and the PH has 15 minutes until it respawns. Say someone asks if I can step outside to SOW them real quick. Would you be like "LOL YOU ZONED NOT YOUR CAMP ANYMORE!"?

[soup]

Also, as for the "arbitrary time duration" to not exceed, that's easy. If shit spawns faster than you can kill it, you aren't doing it in a timely manner.

[Agaron]

It sounds like you don't even know WHY he zoned rofl

The enchanter doesn't zone because he cant hold the camp or needs to get some mob off him or whatever, it's because his charmed pet is low HP and by zoning it regens rapidly to full. It has nothing to do with an inability to hold the camp. It's only abouth efficiency. He could have sat there letting the mob slowly regen up while sitting at the camp, but that would take much longer, and he has people waiting in line who made a deal for the camp after him, so speeding it up helps everyone, right? Oh, guess not, because people are douche bags and think zoning is like going to another planet or something.

As far as the zoning argument, say I am camping Gynok in Befallen. Say I have just killed the PH a couple minutes ago, and the PH has 15 minutes until it respawns. Say someone asks if I can step outside to SOW them real quick. Would you be like "LOL YOU ZONED NOT YOUR CAMP ANYMORE!"?

Right. If you come to a camp, and any of the targets are down, dmged, or engaged, and you don't see someone, you can't assume they're not camping. They could be invis, they could be kiting, they could be fighting it out of view, or even zoning. You don't know. If the camp is fully spawned, because entire group wiped, and you clear it without anyone communicating from get go, or someone popping out of invis to hold camp, then you're sol. Two different things.

[Alawen Everywhere]

If you dig back in time to my very first post on this server, I was camping Grimrot for my cleric. I left to port a guildy and ran back. When I got back, three lowbies WHO HAD SEEN ME CAMPING GRIMROT FOR HOURS were sitting and prepping for the pull. They hadn't killed a single skeleton yet. According to server rules, the camp was theirs and I let them take it.

All of this seems very basic to me. If you're not there, it's not your camp. Yes, if you zone out of camping Gynok, you lost your camp. I was not there, I lost my camp.

Incidentally, the group I let take Grimrot then flamed me anyway.

[soup]

If you dig back in time to my very first post on this server, I was camping Grimrot for my cleric. I left to port a guildy and ran back. When I got back, three lowbies WHO HAD SEEN ME CAMPING GRIMROT FOR HOURS were sitting and prepping for the pull. They hadn't killed a single skeleton yet. According to server rules, the camp was theirs and I let them take it.

All of this seems very basic to me. If you're not there, it's not your camp. Yes, if you zone out of camping Gynok, you lost your camp. I was not there, I lost my camp.

Incidentally, the group I let take Grimrot then flamed me anyway.
I don't understand why the details of how or where or methods or if you zone or not is relevant if you're there to engage the mob when it spawns or are in the process of clearing the camp.

All of this seems very basic to me. If the person is killing the mob when it spawns then it's not your camp. Don't worry about the details of if they run xxx distance away or whatever other bullshit. It's their camp and how they do it should be of zero concern to you.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I like how people here are making up camping rules to suit them and this situation when the camping rules are already clearly posted for all to read and understand. Just because you don't like one particular rule, or it doesn't work for your class or playstyle or standards of efficiency doesn't mean you can selectively choose to ignore it.

I am not disagreeing the enchanter had the camp at the time the group came back from CR. Per the rules that currently exist to handle this kind of crap, yes... the original group had not retained a presence at the camp, nor did they demonstrate the ability to hold the camp since they wiped. The group knew this based on the first screenshot of the discussion. That's why Dravyen backed down. They knew they did not hold rights to the camp.

However, the enchanter zoned during the course of clearing the camp. At the moment he did this, I don't care how much you want to lawyer this up with hypothetical situations and kiting and bullshit like that, he did not retain a presence IN THE ZONE, much less the camp. For those of you that disagree, please draw me some fucking diagrams or flowcharts proving that you can be outside the zone and "retaining a presence at the camp" in a zone you are not in. You can't. Because it's not fucking possible. The enchanter lost rights to the camp at this point, and therefore the deal/ultimatum was void because the camp became the groups.

Why the enchanter zoned is not my concern. It was stated that the pet was at 5% health. If the enchanter cannot hold the camp with a pet at 5% health, then he demonstrates an inability to hold the camp. You're absolutely right... it was a matter of efficiency. More so, a matter of time. If the enchanter had retained presence at the camp as required by the server rules to continue to have rights at the camp, the enchanter would have had several options I can think of off the top of my head:

a) Wait for the pet to regain HP naturally, which may or may not have been before respawn. Tough luck. If you cannot clear the camp before shit starts respawning so you can get to the PH/named, that's your problem. Maybe you should group up and stop solo farming stuff you can't clear out the respawn on while retaining a presence at the camp. Should have rolled a necro or mage.

b) Kill the pet, charm a new one. Probably a little risky in this situation, but if you want to maintain rights to the camp, this is where as a solo caster, you must demonstrate your ability to hold the camp.

c) Mez/memblur so that it regains HP faster, then re-charm. Same as (b).

d) Zone out to break charm and let the mob regain HP faster, then zone back in and re-charm. This, ironically enough, is the only one of the four options I presented (I'm sure there are more) that does not retain a presence at the camp and loses his rights to the camp per the server rules. If the OP had done B or C, he would have maintained rights to the camp and the other group would not have been able to "legally" claim the camp, and this post wouldn't even exist right now.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I don't understand why the details of how or where or methods or if you zone or not is relevant if you're there to engage the mob when it spawns or are in the process of clearing the camp.

Let me help you understand:

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp.

4. In order to hold a camp, the player or group must be able to demonstrate the ability to hold the camp without further help.

Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.

[soup]

I like how people here are making up camping rules to suit them and this situation when the camping rules are already clearly posted for all to read and understand. Just because you don't like one particular rule, or it doesn't work for your class or playstyle or standards of efficiency doesn't mean you can selectively choose to ignore it.

I am not disagreeing the enchanter had the camp at the time the group came back from CR. Per the rules that currently exist to handle this kind of crap, yes... the original group had not retained a presence at the camp, nor did they demonstrate the ability to hold the camp since they wiped. The group knew this based on the first screenshot of the discussion. That's why Dravyen backed down. They knew they did not hold rights to the camp.

However, the enchanter zoned during the course of clearing the camp. At the moment he did this, I don't care how much you want to lawyer this up with hypothetical situations and kiting and bullshit like that, he did not retain a presence IN THE ZONE, much less the camp. For those of you that disagree, please draw me some fucking diagrams or flowcharts proving that you can be outside the zone and "retaining a presence at the camp" in a zone you are not in. You can't. Because it's not fucking possible. The enchanter lost rights to the camp at this point, and therefore the deal/ultimatum was void because the camp became the groups.

Why the enchanter zoned is not my concern. It was stated that the pet was at 5% health. If the enchanter cannot hold the camp with a pet at 5% health, then he demonstrates an inability to hold the camp. You're absolutely right... it was a matter of efficiency. More so, a matter of time. If the enchanter had retained presence at the camp as required by the server rules to continue to have rights at the camp, the enchanter would have had several options I can think of off the top of my head:

a) Wait for the pet to regain HP naturally, which may or may not have been before respawn. Tough luck. If you cannot clear the camp before shit starts respawning so you can get to the PH/named, that's your problem. Maybe you should group up and stop solo farming stuff you can't clear out the respawn on while retaining a presence at the camp. Should have rolled a necro or mage.

b) Kill the pet, charm a new one. Probably a little risky in this situation, but if you want to maintain rights to the camp, this is where as a solo caster, you must demonstrate your ability to hold the camp.

c) Mez/memblur so that it regains HP faster, then re-charm. Same as (b).

d) Zone out to break charm and let the mob regain HP faster, then zone back in and re-charm. This, ironically enough, is the only one of the four options I presented (I'm sure there are more) that does not retain a presence at the camp and loses his rights to the camp per the server rules. If the OP had done B or C, he would have maintained rights to the camp and the other group would not have been able to "legally" claim the camp, and this post wouldn't even exist right now.

And as I've said before and I will say again, just because according to server rules zoning out for 20 seconds then back in means the camp is a FFA and anyone can claim it doesn't mean you aren't a grade A douche bag for deciding to do so, ESPECIALLY if you had just made a deal to let someone do a round then hand the camp over. Making a deal to let them solo it then negating it because they zone out for 20 seconds is completely retarded.

Back to the Gynok example. If I zone out to SoW myself and you choose to take that 30 seconds to take the camp from me, it doesn't matter if the server rules say you are allowed to do that, you're still a 100% douche bag for trying to do so.

Why do people here seem to have absolutely no concept of common sense or decency? It's always just about trying to find any kind of way to twist the server rules to their benefit even if it means shitting on other players in the process. I'm sure someone will respond to this with something like "LOL what about when the enchanter gave them an ultimatum to allow one or camp it all day?!?!" when all he did was say "well, according to the rules, I COULD do this, but I'm not going to, I'll just kill one more then leave, sound fair?" which was met with a "Yes, that sounds fair, we agree to this deal"

I'm really starting to question this supposed maturity and camaraderie EQ players are supposed to have over the fabled WoW kiddies everyone always bitches about.

[soup]

Let me help you understand:





Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.
Enchanter didn't invoke shit. He said he could be a dick and do xxxxx, but instead he'll just kill one more and leave if that is agreed to be fair, which it was.

[soup]

The only time he was even close to "invoking rules" was when Slappie was bitching at him after a deal was made.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Enchanter didn't invoke shit. He said he could be a dick and do xxxxx, but instead he'll just kill one more and leave if that is agreed to be fair, which it was.

Yup, during the time he had rights to the camp. Those rights expired when he zoned, per rule 1. Unless you can show how someone not in a zone can simultaneously retain a presence at a camp in that zone. Which you can't.

Whether you agree with those rules is irrelevant to how they are applied to determine who had the rights to the camp at each point in this situation we're discussing.

[rioisk]

Greetings,

We will be tweaking this along with some other rules as we move forward but it is time to address some issues with camps that have been coming up. I will try to use some examples to clarify rules.

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp. If you have no competition in the zone, you are more than welcome to hold as many as you like. The moment another party wants to claim a camp and you are "farming" multiple, you must decide which camp you want and forfeit the ones someone else is interested in. We still expect players to use the courtesy camp check before zerging a room. If there is a full spawn of mobs in a camp room up I think that would be considered not camped. How you pull the camp is up to you, as long as you are able to engage the mobs very shortly after they are spawned.

*Example* You are doing Ghoul Magi, Lord, and Frenzy in lguk. Another group arrives to claim a camp. If they stumble upon a spawned room devoid of players, they can claim it. Where your group resides is your camp; choose wisely.

2. Just because you know the timer a mob's spawn does NOT mean you are entitled to the camp. Examples include Ishva mal, Estrella, and Undertow. I have seen too many threads about ishva mal in particular where there is a person there at the camp and someone comes and either KS's the spawn or charms the mob to bring it somewhere else etc claiming it was theirs due to it being on timer. If you are trying to timer a spawn and you arrive and someone else is there, too bad, you should have been there earlier.

3. The efreeti spawn kind of covers both of these situations, with this camp in particular if you are not at the spawn and another group arrives, you lose it.

4. In order to hold a camp, the player or group must be able to demonstrate the ability to hold the camp without further help.
*Example* An enchanter and lvl 40 ranger are in a group. The enchanter leaves to go kill frenzy and the ranger stay at lord. In this instance both camps are not considered held as the ranger could not survive this camp on his own without the enchanter.

5. Outdoor pathing mobs are not campable unless you are sitting at the spawn point and able to engage it instantly. Outdoor mobs on fast respawn such as HG and spectres, if you cannot engage immediately you do not hold the camp. Please try and share with fellow players in these instances.

6. AFK camping is not respected and is frowned upon, if caught afk camping you will be booted to the character select screen.

7. We do not have a rule for how a camp will be handed off to another player. It is recommended the player interested in obtaining a camp work that out with who is on the camp already.
*Example* Player a is on jboots, player b comes and sits and just waits. If player a wants to hand off to his friend rather than player b, he has that right. If player a wants to hold a list and give to the next player on that list, that is also his right. GMs will not moderate that unless player b can prove he was deceived by player a with how the camp would be handed off.

Any deal between players trumps any of these rules so long as all players agree. These rules are here to be a guide to players for what rights they have while in the game. In my opinion this is very similar to what SoE did with camp disputes in game. As Nilbog has said in this thread, in 99 every named spawn in zones would have entire groups at them. If one group was capitalizing on more than one spawn and a second group wanted half or to share and then petitioned, PNP would be enforced and the groups would be forced to share. This is a guide explaining how we would like things to be shared.

Failure to comply and respect these rules will be viewed as disruptive behavior and players will be subject to disciplinary action. Please dont let it come to this.

[soup]

Let me help you understand:





Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.
Also, your step 5 there is flawed. You can't say "group invokes rule 1, as was done to them" unless they had a deal beforehand where the enchanter would let them clear once then the camp is his but then he just took the camp anyway.

The whole debate of the rules is fucking stupid when they have a fucking agreement.

[rioisk]

In other words, if you have to zone to break the camp you can not handle the camp and you forfeit it.

[soup]

Greetings,

We will be tweaking this along with some other rules as we move forward but it is time to address some issues with camps that have been coming up. I will try to use some examples to clarify rules.

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp. If you have no competition in the zone, you are more than welcome to hold as many as you like. The moment another party wants to claim a camp and you are "farming" multiple, you must decide which camp you want and forfeit the ones someone else is interested in. We still expect players to use the courtesy camp check before zerging a room. If there is a full spawn of mobs in a camp room up I think that would be considered not camped. How you pull the camp is up to you, as long as you are able to engage the mobs very shortly after they are spawned.

*Example* You are doing Ghoul Magi, Lord, and Frenzy in lguk. Another group arrives to claim a camp. If they stumble upon a spawned room devoid of players, they can claim it. Where your group resides is your camp; choose wisely.

2. Just because you know the timer a mob's spawn does NOT mean you are entitled to the camp. Examples include Ishva mal, Estrella, and Undertow. I have seen too many threads about ishva mal in particular where there is a person there at the camp and someone comes and either KS's the spawn or charms the mob to bring it somewhere else etc claiming it was theirs due to it being on timer. If you are trying to timer a spawn and you arrive and someone else is there, too bad, you should have been there earlier.

3. The efreeti spawn kind of covers both of these situations, with this camp in particular if you are not at the spawn and another group arrives, you lose it.

4. In order to hold a camp, the player or group must be able to demonstrate the ability to hold the camp without further help.
*Example* An enchanter and lvl 40 ranger are in a group. The enchanter leaves to go kill frenzy and the ranger stay at lord. In this instance both camps are not considered held as the ranger could not survive this camp on his own without the enchanter.

5. Outdoor pathing mobs are not campable unless you are sitting at the spawn point and able to engage it instantly. Outdoor mobs on fast respawn such as HG and spectres, if you cannot engage immediately you do not hold the camp. Please try and share with fellow players in these instances.

6. AFK camping is not respected and is frowned upon, if caught afk camping you will be booted to the character select screen.

7. We do not have a rule for how a camp will be handed off to another player. It is recommended the player interested in obtaining a camp work that out with who is on the camp already.
*Example* Player a is on jboots, player b comes and sits and just waits. If player a wants to hand off to his friend rather than player b, he has that right. If player a wants to hold a list and give to the next player on that list, that is also his right. GMs will not moderate that unless player b can prove he was deceived by player a with how the camp would be handed off.

Any deal between players trumps any of these rules so long as all players agree. These rules are here to be a guide to players for what rights they have while in the game. In my opinion this is very similar to what SoE did with camp disputes in game. As Nilbog has said in this thread, in 99 every named spawn in zones would have entire groups at them. If one group was capitalizing on more than one spawn and a second group wanted half or to share and then petitioned, PNP would be enforced and the groups would be forced to share. This is a guide explaining how we would like things to be shared.

Failure to comply and respect these rules will be viewed as disruptive behavior and players will be subject to disciplinary action. Please dont let it come to this.
Step 1: make an agreement
Step 2: renege on agreement and kill mob anyway
Step 3: say it's okay to renege on said agreement because server rules allow it
yeaahhhhhhhhh

[soup]

In other words, if you have to zone to break the camp you can not handle the camp and you forfeit it.

1. it's not a matter of not being able to handle the camp without zoning, it's a matter of speeding up the process, which also works to the benefit of the people who made the deal, assuming they honor that deal anyway, which brings us to:
2. no matter what the rules say, making a deal then throwing it out the window because you haven't seen the person you made the deal with for 20 seconds makes you a douche bag

It's crazy how many people here place no value whatsoever on mutually agreed arrangements.

[rioisk]

The agreement is superseded by server rules. When they agreed to this they anticipated you being able to sit in camp and solo it and not have to zone as defined by camp rules. You were unable to do this so, by the same rules, you forfeited the camp by zoning.

Just because somebody tells you you can have a shot doesn't mean "you can zone as many times as you want we'll make sure nobody else takes it while you're gone"

[Stepy]

"And as I've said before and I will say again, just because according to server rules zoning out for 20 seconds then back in means the camp is a FFA and anyone can claim it doesn't mean you aren't a grade A douche bag for deciding to do so, ESPECIALLY if you had just made a deal to let someone do a round then hand the camp over. Making a deal to let them solo it then negating it because they zone out for 20 seconds is completely retarded. "

Unless things have changed since the old days or maybe i have forgotten in my old age but doesn't zoning from King area put at the L.Guk entrance in U. Guk and you have to invis/run all the way back? It seems this process would take much longer than 20 seconds unless the enchanter was bound close to this area and would just zone and port back.
Regardless, I believe once he zone the group wasn't obligated to let him return to claim it but did give him another chance. He certainally didn't offer them the same chance when they reported of the wipe.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Step 1: make an agreement
Step 2: renege on agreement and kill mob anyway
Step 3: say it's okay to renege on said agreement because server rules allow it
yeaahhhhhhhhh

More like:

Step 1: make an agreement because you now have rights the camp with the group that previously had rights to the camp
Step 2: lose rights to the camp by zoning
Step 3: cry

Why is it a douchebag move to take a camp after the guy camping it zones for 30 seconds, but not a douchebag move to move in on a camp while the group camping it previously made a mistake, wiped, and are on CR? I mean, exp loss and the corpse run are bad enough, now some douchebag is kicking them in the teeth by taking their camp, too! See, it works both ways... so all we have after all that subjective "who's the bigger douchebag here?" shit-slinging are the fairly objective rules.

And since you're all about throwing out hypothetical situations, who's to say they had full ability to hold the camp, but wiped because someone trained shit on them?

My group moved in on GY in Mistmoore Friday night after the previous group there wiped. Full spawn. I felt bad about it, but by the server rules, they couldn't hold the camp and did not retain their presence there. I was not going to argue with my group about it, and I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it. Those of us who try to avoid being perceived as douchebags 100% of the time would get walked all over by everyone else, and still be level 10 with banded armor if we didn't stick up for ourselves, especially in the overcamped zones on the server.

[rioisk]

Why is it a douchebag move to take a camp after the guy camping it zones for 30 seconds, but not a douchebag move to move in on a camp while the group camping it previously made a mistake, wiped, and are on CR? .

This^^

[YendorLootmonkey]

The agreement is superseded by server rules.

Actually, it's not.

Any deal between players trumps any of these rules so long as all players agree. These rules are here to be a guide to players for what rights they have while in the game. In my opinion this is very similar to what SoE did with camp disputes in game.

Slappie didn't agree, but it appears he was coerced into agreeing when the OP made a veiled threat to sit there and camp the shit all night on them. Because at that point, the camp was his.

Regardless, the agreement was made void when the OP gave up the camp by zoning, as he no longer had rights to the camp, i.e. the leverage he used to make the agreement in the first place.

[soup]

Let's make an example thats on a larger and more grand scale of how the fact that they made an agreement SHOULD be what everyone is looking at.

Say there's only two guilds that are ever killing the raid bosses, such as Nagafen and Vox. We'll call them guild A and guild B. Say Nagafen spawns and both guilds converge at once, with no one having an obvious rightful claim over the other to the spawn. Say they come to an agreement, guild A will get Nagafen right now, but in return guild A will let guild B kill Vox next spawn. Now say 12 hours later Vox spawns and guild A rolls into an empty permafrost and kills Vox. Server rules allow this 100%, but guild A would certainly be douche bags of the highest caliber for doing that. You could spam server rules all you wont, they would still be worthless douche bags. (don't try to interpret this the wrong way, I'm not trying to imply any guilds in question are douche bags or blahblah, it's just a hypothetical example)

[Alawen Everywhere]

Let me help you understand:





Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.

Loling for several minutes about this post. Thanks Yendor :)

[soup]

More like:

Step 1: make an agreement because you now have rights the camp with the group that previously had rights to the camp
Step 2: lose rights to the camp by zoning
Step 3: cry

Why is it a douchebag move to take a camp after the guy camping it zones for 30 seconds, but not a douchebag move to move in on a camp while the group camping it previously made a mistake, wiped, and are on CR? I mean, exp loss and the corpse run are bad enough, now some douchebag is kicking them in the teeth by taking their camp, too! See, it works both ways... so all we have after all that subjective "who's the bigger douchebag here?" shit-slinging are the fairly objective rules.

And since you're all about throwing out hypothetical situations, who's to say they had full ability to hold the camp, but wiped because someone trained shit on them?

My group moved in on GY in Mistmoore Friday night after the previous group there wiped. Full spawn. I felt bad about it, but by the server rules, they couldn't hold the camp and did not retain their presence there. I was not going to argue with my group about it, and I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it. Those of us who try to avoid being perceived as douchebags 100% of the time would get walked all over by everyone else, and still be level 10 with banded armor if we didn't stick up for ourselves, especially in the overcamped zones on the server.The douche baggery is pretty easy to measure based on knowledge of the situation either party had while they were doing what they were doing. The enchanter came up to a fully spawned camp, and began clearing it with (presumably) no knowledge that a group had wiped there and was corpse running. He just sees a full spawn with no one around, so it appears to be an open camp. Once they explain the situation to him he says alright, what if I just kill the next PH then hand it back over, sound fair? And they agree.

On the flipside, when the group moved in on the "empty camp" that was now almost fully cleared, they were 100% aware of the enchanter and the deal they had made, but tossed it all aside.

[Alawen Everywhere]

I'm really curious about something here. How many of the people on the pro-solo enchanter side of this argument play an enchanter or a necromancer?

[soup]

So I dunno, clearing a fully spawned camp with no apparent signs of anyone camping it and then offering it back to the group after 1 round of spawns
OR
Making a deal to let someone kill the round of spawns but just moving in and killing it all anyway when the enchanter is gone for a few seconds.

pretty tough call on what the real douche baggery is!

BTW if they really placed any merit at ALL in their deal they had made they would have asked the enchanter what he was doing instead of just trucking on in.

It really all just comes down to whether or not you place any value on your word and any agreements you make with it.

[Alawen Everywhere]

The douche baggery is pretty easy to measure based on knowledge of the situation either party had while they were doing what they were doing. The enchanter came up to a fully spawned camp, and began clearing it with (presumably) no knowledge that a group had wiped there and was corpse running. He just sees a full spawn with no one around, so it appears to be an open camp. Once they explain the situation to him he says alright, what if I just kill the next PH then hand it back over, sound fair? And they agree.

On the flipside, when the group moved in on the "empty camp" that was now almost fully cleared, they were 100% aware of the enchanter and the deal they had made, but tossed it all aside.

You can never know the motivations of any individual. This is the same error in reason that leads to corruption in legal systems and stupid ideas like "hate crimes". Only the rule of law can deliver impartial justice.

[Alawen Everywhere]

So I dunno, clearing a fully spawned camp with no apparent signs of anyone camping it and then offering it back to the group after 1 round of spawns
OR
Making a deal to let someone kill the round of spawns but just moving in and killing it all anyway when the enchanter is gone for a few seconds.

pretty tough call on what the real douche baggery is!

BTW if they really placed any merit at ALL in their deal they had made they would have asked the enchanter what he was doing instead of just trucking on in.

It really all just comes down to whether or not you place any value on your word and any agreements you make with it.

They kept their word. He had his opportunity. He failed.

[Stepy]

I play a Necromancer and do not side with this enchanter, unless they all had corpses summoned or dragged to a safe place they should have been seen by the Enchanter.
I'm would believe they would agree to let him have his ONE ph to give them time to buff and med for next respawn.

[soup]

They kept their word. He had his opportunity. He failed.

Except for the part where they didn't even let him engage the mob, rofl

[Alawen Everywhere]

Except for the part where they didn't even let him engage the mob, rofl

Except for the part WHERE HE LEFT THE FUCKING ZONE. He failed. You play a solo class, don't you?

[YendorLootmonkey]

Let's make an example thats on a larger and more grand scale of how the fact that they made an agreement SHOULD be what everyone is looking at.

Let's try a better example that more closely parallels the situation:

Guild A wipes on Vox and starts their CR for their next attempt. When they return, Guild B is engaging Vox. Guild A says they're on CR and had Vox. Guild B says "Well, you aren't here now and you had your chance, now we got Vox." Then, Guild B says "After we get Vox though, you can camp here and wait for the next Vox spawn... we'll be done with Vox after this spawn. We have jobs so we don't intend to camp the next Vox spawn." Guild A is like "Okay!" because for whatever reason that seems like a good deal to them! Because Guild B could totally be dicks and sit there and wait until the next Vox spawn and kill her again, but they are benevolent and offer this agreement to Guild A.

Then, holy shit!! Guild B can't do Vox without zoning. They are no longer in Permafrost. Guild A is sitting right there, remembering how totally awesome it was for Guild B to take Vox on them when they left the zone (it just happened to be without their corpse/inventories). But they had an agreement with Guild B based on Guild B's leverage over them at the time that Guild B in fact had rights to Vox since Guild A wasn't there. But now Guild B isn't there, so Guild A has rights to Vox.

Guild B no longer has the leverage which the agreement was based on. Part of the agreement was based on the fact that Guild A no longer had rights to Vox and would not be getting a Vox kill that night. But those conditions of the agreement changed when Guild B zoned out.

I don't know where you're from, but when conditions within an agreement change, you no longer have an agreement. Because the agreement was initially made based on a set of conditions that no longer exist.

If you agree to trade 12K for a FBSS, and the conditions of that agreement change because the buyer puts 1200pp into the trade window, you are not bound by that agreement, right? Or are you a douchebag for not hitting TRADE anyway?

[Icecometus]

If the OP had explained what he was doing by zoning out I think that all this could have been avoided. The subtle nature of enchanter soloing may not be common knowledge to the rest of the population that needs to group to get phat loots ;)

[Stepy]

What ever happened to common courtesy, when you know a person or group wiped why not let them have camp back we used to do it in the old days before greed ruined the game.

[soup]

Except for the part WHERE HE LEFT THE FUCKING ZONE. He failed. You play a solo class, don't you?

His only mistake there was giving them too much credit and thinking they would actually honor the agreement they made instead of just moving in after 30 seconds.

I'm sure next time he'll just park the pet and let it regen for 10 minutes and make the group wait even longer instead of trying to speed things up for everyone.

[guineapig]

Unless things have changed since the old days or maybe i have forgotten in my old age but doesn't zoning from King area put at the L.Guk entrance in U. Guk and you have to invis/run all the way back? It seems this process would take much longer than 20 seconds unless the enchanter was bound close to this area and would just zone and port back.

No, it puts you in Inhotule swamp at Uguk zoneline....

[Dantes]

How come you didn't just send a tell to somebody in that group?

/tell groupmember Gonna zone so my pet can regen, still taking the mob, brb kthnxbai

[Wrei]

Perhaps this whole bitchfest would have been avoided if the enchanter had simply informed the group that he was zoning to heal the pet and NOT leaving the camp. How was the group suppose to surmise he'd be back (or did he tell them before he zoned). The server rules was made to prevent greedy players of jacking up multiple spawns (mainly enchanters). The rules are pretty clear cut it does not allow for X class to be able to zone from Y camp for ownership. When an enchanter can solo every named mob from dead side + the king (with bind/gate), you need these kind of rules (of sitting in front of a spawn) to make it fair for all groups seeking to claim a camp.

When a group loses a camp, you lose a camp. Making the "deal" in the first place was wrong, if the enchanter had wiped trying to break the room and that group showed up. Do you think the group would have made a "deal" with the enchanter? Please, they would have told his greedy ass to take a hike simply by virtue of the effort it took the group to get there. So in that respect, making a deal was retarded to begin with.

If you are going to make a player agreement, it best be pretty explicit as to how it goes. Zoning out at any time is a pretty significant deal, not because it heals your pet but because an enchanter can lay claim to a different camp by gating (yes i know in this instance it only was for 20sec or so). You cannot however make up new rules to satisfy every single fucking instances. Make them simple, sit your ass down if you want to claim something (it's really not rocket science).

On the issue of efficiency, when you have a group breathing down your neck, zoning out to heal is about the most retarded thing to do. Enchanters can solo fine without the need to gate. Zoning makes it easier and less of a hassle but comes with the risk of losing a camp.

As for decency, the decent thing to do would have been to let the group have the camp. You know, the guys who can't solo the camp and could even get xp. Back in my youth when I was hanging out with my froglok buddies, I made it a point to always give a camp to a full group of people. Especially if they are looking to actually get xp from a camp, I'm sure you can solo the king camp anytime. Just suck it up and move on...

[Alawen Everywhere]

I just reread the original post and it's got two serious problems. He claims to have "broken" the camp, but then there's a full respawn to deal with all at once. What he calls "breaking" I call clearing a minimum to get to the ph. I'm going to call this lie #1.

He then claims he zoned and was back in 20 seconds. I find that extremely hard to believe unless he was bound right at king.

He claims that there is nothing he could do except zone the pet for regen. As pointed out already, this claim is completely untrue. Lie #2.

Finally, this is far from an indisputable conflict. There are definitely two sides here and the OP came here with the intention of smearing the reputations of Divinity and the specifically named members. His name is in the mud right along with them now just as it should be.

He made a deal and had his chance. He wanted chance after chance. OP is fail.

[Stepy]

"No, it puts you in Inhotule swamp at Uguk zoneline...."

Good to know, since I don't useally camp the king i wouldn't need to zone out. Regardless it would take much longer than the 20 or even 30 seconds to return to camp unless you were bound near it and gate back.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I'm sure next time he'll just park the pet and let it regen for 10 minutes and make the group wait even longer instead of trying to speed things up for everyone.

Or mezzing the pet and mem blurring to get the same end result, with the added benefit of not giving up the camp.

[Deeps]

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

[soup]

Let's try a better example that more closely parallels the situation:

Guild A wipes on Vox and starts their CR for their next attempt. When they return, Guild B is engaging Vox. Guild A says they're on CR and had Vox. Guild B says "Well, you aren't here now and you had your chance, now we got Vox." Then, Guild B says "After we get Vox though, you can camp here and wait for the next Vox spawn... we'll be done with Vox after this spawn. We have jobs so we don't intend to camp the next Vox spawn." Guild A is like "Okay!" because for whatever reason that seems like a good deal to them! Because Guild B could totally be dicks and sit there and wait until the next Vox spawn and kill her again, but they are benevolent and offer this agreement to Guild A.

Then, holy shit!! Guild B can't do Vox without zoning. They are no longer in Permafrost. Guild A is sitting right there, remembering how totally awesome it was for Guild B to take Vox on them when they left the zone (it just happened to be without their corpse/inventories). But they had an agreement with Guild B based on Guild B's leverage over them at the time that Guild B in fact had rights to Vox since Guild A wasn't there. But now Guild B isn't there, so Guild A has rights to Vox.

Guild B no longer has the leverage which the agreement was based on. Part of the agreement was based on the fact that Guild A no longer had rights to Vox and would not be getting a Vox kill that night. But those conditions of the agreement changed when Guild B zoned out. You're trying too hard to put tons of parallels in, when all that is relevant is the agreement. Does guild A agree to let guild B kill Vox? Yes. Do they make any stipulations about what nullifies the agreement? No. Do they kill Vox anyway? Yes. They are douche bags, with the only exception being if guild B is physically unable to kill Vox. Not if they wipe once, but if they can't and are forced to give up. You agreed to let them kill it, changing the agreement because you don't like how they do it is shady bullshit. Moving in on the camp because the enchanter is regening his pet isn't much different than a guild leap frogging another that has cleared all the giants and shit while they are medding and buffing up. Zoning out and then in is the enchanters medding and buffing up in this situation. You're not exactly honoring your agreement if you never even let the person prep and engage the mob.



If you agree to trade 12K for a FBSS, and the conditions of that agreement change because the buyer puts 1200pp into the trade window, you are not bound by that agreement, right? Or are you a douchebag for not hitting TRADE anyway?
Okay wow, this is definitely the most retarded thing in this thread I gotta say. The agreement here is "I give you the FBSS, you give me the 12k" and the other person doesn't honor their end, so you don't honor yours. How exactly do you parallel that to the guk situation? The enchanter offered up the camp after one round of spawns, the group offered up that one round of spawns. Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[YendorLootmonkey]

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

It's not like we didn't know that this time around. We have no one to blame but ourselves for choosing the classes that we did. ;)

[soup]

How come you didn't just send a tell to somebody in that group?

/tell groupmember Gonna zone so my pet can regen, still taking the mob, brb kthnxbai

That can go both ways.

Why didn't they send a tell to see whats up before moving in?
"Hey, what are you doing? We're here waiting and ready to go?"
if he's being sketchy and they're questioning the deal now, they could even say like "Whats going on? If you aren't here in 2 minutes we're going in"

there's a ton of better ways to handle it aside from just plowing on in.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

[Alawen Everywhere]

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

I think we all know that enchanters that tried this on live were called "dead". There's this weird idea that no one stacked charisma and no one knew how to charm that apparently allows this situation to continue. Can you even imagine charming and hasting a planar mob on live? It would wipe your entire raid after a couple mez resists.

The best explanation I've seen for this situation is Uuae's theory that resists are calculated as a percentage of 400 rather than as a percentage of 250 or whatever they're supposed to be. This would be consistent with how easily I land druid and cleric nukes even on red cons. On live, the druid nukes with debuff components never landed on anything worth killing, they were just a good way to go oom.

Now watch, druid and cleric nukes will get nerfed, but charm will continue as is. :P

[YendorLootmonkey]

By soup's logic, I can go around in LGuk making agreements with other groups about rights to camps I don't have rights to, and when those agreements aren't honored, they are the douchebags.

[Alawen Everywhere]

This story has gotten tiresome. Soup is the only one arguing pro-soloist and his logic, analogies and arguments are all terrible. Going to pride parade and Alice in the park, bye!

[soup]

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

It wasn't his camp anymore because the group he made a deal with stole it from him, rofl

[Wrei]

Or mezzing the pet and mem blurring to get the same end result, with the added benefit of not giving up the camp.

That would imply "playing" their class... there's a lot of options of which mez/blur is but one of them (1 of the shittiest one since blur is so random). The OP made it a point to stress on the 20 sec, what if it was longer then that? 30? 1min?5min? At what point do you say "ok, he's been gone too long and we can take over the camp". This is why you don't leave in the first place and if you do to make sure that the other party understands what your about to do.

Next time your in a similar situation, just put your foot down and keep the camp if you want to be a dick about it. Don't expect to get a fair deal when the retarded balancing doesn't allow the other 90% of the classes to do what your able to do. This isn't about solo vs group but an enchanter crying over a king camp seriously makes me lol... ;)

[Stepy]

"IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess."

I believe the opposite if it can be done solo then the group should leave and find suitable group camps. ;P :D

[YendorLootmonkey]

It wasn't his camp anymore because the group he made a deal with stole it from him, rofl

No, because he failed to retain a presence at the camp when he zoned. Jesus Christ. Okay, now you're just trolling. Have fun claiming camps that you aren't even in the same zone as, and making agreements on camps you don't hold the rights to, if that's what your conscience allows you to try and do.

[ClamSmasher22]

It was a poor agreement. If you only wanted one spawn and would release the camp, why wouldn't they help you do it? It would get you out of there much faster and they could move back to what they were doing. It's because they were hoping you would fail and they would then take it. Seems obvious to me, agreement or not.

It's not surprising to me that they moved in after you zoned. I've had people take camps after my group wiped. Sometimes it gets out of hand, everyone dies/gates then goes back down. I would be pissed if someone else was already there, -especially- if was one person soling instead of a group getting exp.

I'd do the same thing. Except I wouldn't make an agreement, I'd call you an ass and tell you I hope you fail.

Then I would /t lol when you zoned and my group would move in.

[soup]

By soup's logic, I can go around in LGuk making agreements with other groups about rights to camps I don't have rights to, and when those agreements aren't honored, they are the douchebags.

Well this is pretty flawed because you wont be convincing people to give a round of their spawns in exchange for a camp they already have.

But let's say you do convince them to do that. Then let's say after you clear most of the camp, they decide they don't like the deal anymore and are taking over all your work. They are douche bags.

[soup]

It was a poor agreement. If you only wanted one spawn and would release the camp, why wouldn't they help you do it? It would get you out of there much faster and they could move back to what they were doing. It's because they were hoping you would fail and they would then take it. Seems obvious to me, agreement or not.

It's not surprising to me that they moved in after you zoned. I've had people take camps after my group wiped. Sometimes it gets out of hand, everyone dies/gates then goes back down. I would be pissed if someone else was already there, -especially- if was one person soling instead of a group getting exp.

I'd do the same thing. Except I wouldn't make an agreement, I'd call you an ass and tell you I hope you fail.

Then I would /t lol when you zoned and my group would move in.

This would be way more reasonable than making a deal and then just tossing it out. Either say fuck off we aren't offering a thing, or make a deal and stick to it. You think he would have zoned to regen his pet if the group said "fuck off" to his deal? No, he would have sat right there, knowing they would move in otherwise. Instead they made a deal, he made the mistake of thinking they wouldn't be shady about it, so he decides to zone to regen the pet because it's quicker. Then he comes back to find they were in fact being shady.

[President]

Funny thread. It really amazes me how many people are on the side of an enchanter than an entire group who was attempting to get the sword for someones main. It is clear that both parties were in the wrong at some point, but if you have to zone, you can't hold the camp. And arguably, IMO, if zoning is to "speed things up" but doing it the "normal way" takes wayyyy toooo fucking long then you can't hold the camp either. It's the same reason there is a 30 minute timer called on other guilds to prepare for a raid boss, you need to be able to kill it, and kill it quickly.

I guess I'm not allowed to say someone is shit in rnf if they're shit. It makes Div look bad, yet people like President can run their mouth in rnf all day long, and it's a.o.k.

Just because I post a lot doesn't mean I post garbage like most of what R&F is. Daydrem has actually talked with me twice about my posting along time ago, but you are welcome to go through my posts and find the "run my mouth all day" ones and bring them up with her. In fact, I think if you search my posts you will find a large majority of them are more helpful to people than the rest of the active posters on this board.

After you guys booted Tralina, one of the nicest chicks on server for some bs reason, and after you let in so much garbage recently I could see why anyone would be weary of joining.

Tralina was voted out, and then asked to leave. Although I am sure you are the know all end all of the server, a lot of Divinity members had bad experiences with her and many of them had nothing to do with her attention-needing attitude. Unfortunately, even though I'd love to, I can't go into any more detail than this.

[President]

This would be way more reasonable than making a deal and then just tossing it out. Either say fuck off we aren't offering a thing, or make a deal and stick to it. You think he would have zoned to regen his pet if the group said "fuck off" to his deal? No, he would have sat right there, knowing they would move in otherwise. Instead they made a deal, he made the mistake of thinking they wouldn't be shady about it, so he decides to zone to regen the pet because it's quicker. Then he comes back to find they were in fact being shady.

I really don't see how letting someone zone while they are attempting to clear a camp TWICE is shady. It seems pretty clear also he did not let the group know of his near-exploit strategy to take the camp either. The fact the group let him zone twice before deciding he obviously couldn't hold the camp properly is pretty nice of them, and It was even nicer of them that they let him roll on the sword which he lost.

But that's pretty cool of you Mr. Enchanter to not believe that a full group was doing a CR and taking a mith 2h for your alt/sale over someones main.

[Wrei]

I really don't see how letting someone zone while they are attempting to clear a camp TWICE is shady. It seems pretty clear also he did not let the group know of his near-exploit strategy to take the camp either. The fact the group let him zone twice before deciding he obviously couldn't hold the camp properly is pretty nice of them, and It was even nicer of them that they let him roll on the sword which he lost.

But that's pretty cool of you Mr. Enchanter to not believe that a full group was doing a CR and taking a mith 2h for your alt/sale over someones main.

I agree the decent thing to do is to give up the camp to a full group, specially if they say they were doing a CR. Would the group have done the same though if the situation had been the other way around? Camp checks are not always infallible, this is why you win/lose camps. It's all speculation but my money is on the group to tell the enchanter to get bent if the situation had been reversed. Can you imagine? Oh charm broke wrong time, I was doing CR but it was my camp....

There's no "decency" in camping anything. If you get a camp legitimately (of witnessing a group/person fail at retaining a camp), then you should keep it. Making sketchy deals to sketchy people then making a sketchy post is not the way to go.

[Hasbinbad]

Hi Wrei!

[Wrei]

Hi, Hasbinbad!

[President]

I agree the decent thing to do is to give up the camp to a full group, specially if they say they were doing a CR. Would the group have done the same though if the situation had been the other way around? Camp checks are not always infallible, this is why you win/lose camps. It's all speculation but my money is on the group to tell the enchanter to get bent if the situation had been reversed. Can you imagine? Oh charm broke wrong time, I was doing CR but it was my camp....

Very true also. I highly doubt I would ever give a camp back to an enchanter if I had someone in the group that actually needed what was dropping in that camp. I can't tell you how many times, especially before the camping rules went in, that I got a group together to go down to camp FBSS/YAK only to find an enchanter clearing the whole downstairs who was AFK during my three camp check's. Although infuriating, I never attempted to fight the enchanter for the spot, even when he wasn't "at the camp" but at one of his other 3 rotating spots.

[Deeps]

intentional training should be bannable of course, but, i long for ffa. I feel like this server is evolving into some kind of weird camping nightmare. Ks'n and stealing camps with a more powerful group just sounds like good clean fun to me. The way things are reminds me of basketball players and european football players who act like they get shot any time they get into contact with anything. Thats real competition, otss, only the strong survive.

[Deeps]

if ks'n and camp stealing were legal, it would also give the guild leaders more power to police themselves, as well as, give the guides and gm's less stuff to worry about. People who are pricks would get blacklisted and booted out of guilds. 1 guy wouldnt be able to camp frenzy for days. It's prolly been discussed before, I'm sure it has. I wish they would at least put up a poll so we could get an idea about what people think. I'm not a genius though, so maybe im wrong, lol.

[Daldolma]

I play a rogue main (with no alts) and have had nothing but good experiences with Divinity, so let's push aside the matter of bias from the get-go.

But I think it's clear that the OP was in the right here, at least up until the loot was dropped. The guy comes to an empty camp with a full spawn, clears the PH, and then is informed that a wiped group is making their way back to that camp. He concedes the camp out of pure goodwill, as it is rightfully his, asking only for the right to the named (or named PH) which he just spent ~20 minutes (assumption) clearing the camp for. The group agrees, with the exception of one member making unreasonable demands (that he walk away from a camp that is his, reaping absolutely zero benefit from the fact that he just cleared the worthless PH, potentially priming the named pop for the group).

The enchanter proceeds to begin clearing the respawns in the way that *every* enchanter does. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that among a full group of players from a guild as respected and high-end as Divinity, not a one understood what the enchanter was doing. That leaves the alternative, which is the reality of the situation: the group knew what was going on, waited for the enchanter to zone, then stole the mob that they had previously agreed to allow the enchanter to kill.

As some posters have gone to great lengths to point out, nothing the group did was against the rules. There is no debate over that -- this was not a rules infringement on the part of either party. That's why it's in RnF instead of a petition. From my view, the enchanter was understanding and conciliatory, while the group -- frustrated by the loss of their camp -- completely ignored any form of common courtesy, in effect taking advantage of a guy that was not looking for a fight. I know that in the world of EQ, the solo'er is big business, and the full group looking for experience is the trampled proletariat, but that wasn't the case in this scenario.

Once the loot dropped, though, the group went above and beyond, IMO. To allow the enchanter to roll essentially evens things up, in my opinion. The fact that the sword was eventually relinquished to the enchanter a) proves to me that the Divinity members, though understandably caught up in frustration and loot-lust at the moment, eventually absolutely, 100% did what was right and made up for any wrong-doing, and b) knew that what they had done was wrong, at least to a certain extent. I'm sorry, but that's a valuable sword. You do not hand that over if you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the gripe.

So basically, I think this thread is a waste. The enchanter did what was right. Divinity eventually did what was right. The correct parties had the correct items (enchanter - sword, Divinity - the camp), and there's really not much more to argue about.

[President]

The enchanter proceeds to begin clearing the respawns in the way that *every* enchanter does. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that among a full group of players from a guild as respected and high-end as Divinity, not a one understood what the enchanter was doing. That leaves the alternative, which is the reality of the situation: the group knew what was going on, waited for the enchanter to zone, then stole the mob that they had previously agreed to allow the enchanter to kill.

I've been playing for some time, on here and classic, and had no enchanter tell me (even my room mate who plays a level 50 enc) that he has to zone to be able to clear a camp. So, I don't find it impossible that no person in that group understood that was his "strategy." I also don't believe that is how every enchanter fights that camp either, as I know for sure my room mate has held it without having to dash to the zone line.


So basically, I think this thread is a waste. The enchanter did what was right. Divinity eventually did what was right. The correct parties had the correct items (enchanter - sword, Divinity - the camp), and there's really not much more to argue about.

I agree on the rest of your assessment, however it does show a lameness of the enchanter.

"Hey, I understand you guys were going to pick up two new members of your group and had a mini wipe, but since I didn't call CC and ran down to the camp and started clearing it, I am going to take the weapon you have been camping for X amount of time even though one of your players needs it."

[Shewz]

People are trying to call me an asshole here (I think some of you are confusing me with soup) so let me clear some things up:

1. I am bound at king.

2. I broke the spawn before I was aware that they were on CR. King is very rarely camped by a group. I'm not on the same plane as a necro camping AM/Lord/Frenzy.

3. I let the spawn repop fully because I didn't expect the m2h to pop and wanted to leave them with some mobs to kill in case it didn't.

4. They knew why I was zoning, because I told them.

^^ So those are all the 100% true facts.

Here's the grey area part of the story that addresses "Shewz zoned because he's a failure":

I didn't put this in the original post because I couldn't prove it with screenshots. As soon as the group saw the M2H king, they had no intention of keeping the deal. They started snaking guards out of the camp (they later claimed: We killed some guards, so we broke the camp, therefore king is ours). They killed the Bok Knight, which is what I use for my pet. This means I had to use a Kor Shaman as my pet instead. This also meant that I knew they were breaking the deal. This added a whole lot of pressure. I was essentially racing against them to aggro the king. I am perfectly capable of efficiently holding the king camp, without zoning, when there isn't a full group racing me and killing my pet mob.

And really, this isn't about server rules. I just wanted to document people being rabid assholes for my own catharsis BEFORE Autum gave me the sword.

Also, the M2H is in the hands of a guildie.

[Stepy]

I don't think it matters if that is the 'Strat' of the day for Enchanters if he has to leave and run back to the camp then it's abandoned. I'm sure others can try a strat. of killing one of the mobs, zoning and running back till it successfully picked off all mobs. If camp is free and clear then fine they can use some strat all day. Clearly he could tell if there was a wipe and the group was considerate to let him have a shot but you can't expect them to wait all day for the Charm - Zone - Return - Med tactic to work.
What would some of you do if you ran in and saw a full spawn or one mob missing and thought, hmmm a chanter must have been using that good ol chanter strat? What if you happened upon the same zone and no one was there and you finished it off and then some chanter walks up and says i was using my strat of the day to clear camp it is mine?

[Daldolma]

That's fair, then -- maybe I take that knowledge for granted. I do have a few enchanter friends in-game, and I've heard them discuss it in Skype (and watched them do it in-game), so it's possible I have more than common knowledge regarding the subject. But to me it seems obvious that an enchanter solo'ing a difficult camp zones (or re-logs) to heal his charm. I think the dash to the zone line is overstated, as well -- the portal is about 8 steps away from the king's throne, and I wouldn't be surprised if the enchanter was bound in the king's safe hall. It's a common bind point for classes that can solo the King. It's entirely possible the whole zoning process took less than a minute, if he were bound at safe hall.

[Daldolma]

What would some of you do if you ran in and saw a full spawn or one mob missing and thought, hmmm a chanter must have been using that good ol chanter strat? What if you happened upon the same zone and no one was there and you finished it off and then some chanter walks up and says i was using my strat of the day to clear camp it is mine?

The problem is that that's not what happened. This group didn't happen upon the camp as the guy was out of zone. They knew what he was doing because he told them, and according to him, he even told them he was going to zone. They agreed to let him have the one mob. Then when he zoned, they killed it. It was wrong. But they gave him the sword, which made everything alright as far as I'm concerned.

And I hadn't seen Shewz's most recent post when I made mine, but it confirms my previous belief that a) the group knew what they were doing, b) he was bound in the King safe hall, and c) the entire "zoning" ordeal likely took less than a full 60 seconds, which renders any kind of defense of the King kill moot. It's one thing if the guy's not there, the group is standing around, and they sake "fuck this, he's not here -- let's take it." But it takes, what? 45 seconds to run to portal, load to Innothule, then gate? They had to be waiting on it, and they had to have engaged the SECOND he zoned out. It's low, it just is.

But again, since they returned the sword, I have a hard time seriously holding this against Divinity. Everyone makes mistakes -- owning the mistake and making reparations is generally above and beyond the call, given the fact that this particular mistake broke no server rule and threatened nobody with any sort of punishment. IMO, chalk another one up for Divinity's generally exceptional reputation, and grats Shewz on the Mithril 2-hander. Not much more to it than that.

[Stepy]

"1. I am bound at king."
OK, I would guess you would be camping king for loot since you plan of doing the rinse and repeat method, rather for cash or guildies.

"3. I let the spawn re pop fully because I didn't expect the m2h to pop and wanted to leave them with some mobs to kill in case it didn't."

This is a little more interesting to me, either you were giving up the camp and wanted to make sure it was full pop so they would have to work for it. You prefer a challenge and wanted a full spawn so you could continue to rely on the charm and zone strat?
This particular statement of your leads me to believe you were planing on leaving and wanted it to be full spawn first and changed your mind when you saw named.
Having several boys this is a common practice when they have to share something they do not give up so willingly.

[Shewz]

Uhh, mobs at the king camp are fairly sparse in my experience. They were a full group, they had plenty of lull power, I figured they would want the xp and the entertainment of killing a full spawn. Sorry? Read the original deal.

[President]

People are trying to call me an asshole here (I think some of you are confusing me with soup) so let me clear some things up:

1. I am bound at king.

2. I broke the spawn before I was aware that they were on CR. King is very rarely camped by a group. I'm not on the same plane as a necro camping AM/Lord/Frenzy.

3. I let the spawn repop fully because I didn't expect the m2h to pop and wanted to leave them with some mobs to kill in case it didn't.

4. They knew why I was zoning, because I told them.

^^ So those are all the 100% true facts.



Whether you have evidence to back it up or not, you should really include everything in the initial post. This can be construed as "Oh shit they are finding flaws in my story I need to go post some other facts." Not that I am saying you are lying, but in the future, include everything in your original post.


Here's the grey area part of the story that addresses "Shewz zoned because he's a failure"

If you need to zone while trying to hold a camp you can lose the camp per the rules, period, end of story.

I didn't put this in the original post because I couldn't prove it with screenshots. As soon as the group saw the M2H king, they had no intention of keeping the deal.

Assumption.

They started snaking guards out of the camp (they later claimed: We killed some guards, so we broke the camp, therefore king is ours). They killed the Bok Knight, which is what I use for my pet. This means I had to use a Kor Shaman as my pet instead.

Part unprovable, part assumption, and part irrelevant. If you can't use whats in front of you to clear the camp, then you can't clear the camp.

This also meant that I knew they were breaking the deal. This added a whole lot of pressure. I was essentially racing against them to aggro the king. I am perfectly capable of efficiently holding the king camp, without zoning, when there isn't a full group racing me and killing my pet mob.

Part assumption, part unprovable, all should have been included in the initial post.

And really, this isn't about server rules. I just wanted to document people being rabid assholes for my own catharsis BEFORE Autum gave me the sword.

Also, the M2H is in the hands of a guildie.

Once again, an enchanter who gates in, doesn't call CC, takes a camp from a group he KNOWS had been camping there aside from having to get group replacements, and you call other people a dick?

I still see this as pretty accurate even though you were bound there:

"Hey, I understand you guys were going to pick up two new members of your group and had a mini wipe, but since I didn't call CC and ran down to the camp and started clearing it, I am going to take the weapon you have been camping for X amount of time even though one of your players needs it."


In Addition: Slappie, if he is an app, will definitely be looked at for his rude/vulgar/lying attitude towards you.

[Skope]

"1. I am bound at king."
OK, I would guess you would be camping king for loot since you plan of doing the rinse and repeat method, rather for cash or guildies.

"3. I let the spawn re pop fully because I didn't expect the m2h to pop and wanted to leave them with some mobs to kill in case it didn't."

This is a little more interesting to me, either you were giving up the camp and wanted to make sure it was full pop so they would have to work for it. You prefer a challenge and wanted a full spawn so you could continue to rely on the charm and zone strat?
This particular statement of your leads me to believe you were planing on leaving and wanted it to be full spawn first and changed your mind when you saw named.
Having several boys this is a common practice when they have to share something they do not give up so willingly.

Yea, considering he had such a rough time he had to zone (or at least zone to make it easier) when you don't have to zone and then actually wait for the repops to then make it harder on himself? The whole thing is a mess, and i think it was a matter of both miscommunication and a misunderstanding from both parties, but w/e. These things happen all the time, it just so happens there's a mithril 2hander involved that sparked this debate.

Either way it's done, dude just got a 10k item from my guildie who would have been using it even though he lost a roll and proceeds to rant about how we have bad attitudes. Take your sword, sell it. Nobody cares

[President]

And I hadn't seen Shewz's most recent post when I made mine, but it confirms my previous belief that a) the group knew what they were doing, b) he was bound in the King safe hall, and c) the entire "zoning" ordeal likely took less than a full 60 seconds, which renders any kind of defense of the King kill moot. It's one thing if the guy's not there, the group is standing around, and they sake "fuck this, he's not here -- let's take it." But it takes, what? 45 seconds to run to portal, load to Innothule, then gate? They had to be waiting on it, and they had to have engaged the SECOND he zoned out. It's low, it just is.

As low as it is to take a mob when someone zones for 60 seconds, it's just as low to take a mob from a group who was getting replacements and had been camping the mob for X amount of time with players that needed it.

[Nocte]

There sure are a lot of assumptions made here about what my group was there to do and what everyone's intentions were. I'm glad I took screenshots of my group's chat and the few tells I sent to Shewz during our time down there. When I get home from work, and can post from somewhere other than my Blackberry, I may post everything leading up to me throwing my hands up in disgust and gating out of the situation before the king was dead.

I'm sure it won't matter, since the drama wagon is careering out of control, but maybe folks can assume less.

[Shewz]

Man you're just trollin me now

[President]

Man you're just trollin me now

Hey man. Both groups were partially in the wrong. They rolled you 1v1 for it, you lost, you came to cry on the forums. Just pointing out the facts.

[Nocte]

I think you might be surprised.

[President]

I think you might be surprised.

This in response to me Nocte? I am very interested to see what you have when you get home.

[Shewz]

Oh man Nocte is gonna crank this shit up to 11, I am so ridiculously excited.

[logiktrip]

What is the actual difference between a group who has to zone out to Uguk after killing 1 mob in king room versus an enchanter who has to do the same? I don't really care how an enchanter has to solo that particular camp, but if the Divinity group had told you 'no, we do one at a time like you do, enchanter buddy' would you have given up the camp?

My money is on no.

[Treats]

This is a little more interesting to me, either you were giving up the camp and wanted to make sure it was full pop so they would have to work for it. You prefer a challenge and wanted a full spawn so you could continue to rely on the charm and zone strat?
This particular statement of your leads me to believe you were planing on leaving and wanted it to be full spawn first and changed your mind when you saw named.
Having several boys this is a common practice when they have to share something they do not give up so willingly.


Just a simple case of greed on the part of the group. Obviously the group (and later the Guild Leadership of Divinity) knew they were doing something wrong (Camp rules or Ethics or whatever) if they let the Enchanter roll for the sword and then later gave it back to him. All was fine and dandy with the group waiting and letting all the frogs spawn until the King pops with the sword and they go into whore mode with "OMG WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LEWTZ ITS OUR CAMP NOW IF WE BREAK THE SPAWN"

To the above poster...Are you just a complete fucking idiot? Do you know of the spell "Pacify" or "Calm"? Yes he was planning on leaving because THATS THE FUCKING AGREEMENT HE MADE WITH THEM.

An Enchanter can kill King/PH/roamer in the room and nothing else then afk for 25 minutes until the next spawn. If an Enchanter binds near the zone out yes he can zone out and be back within 20 seconds depending on load times. I didn't think this was some super secret strategy but obviously some of you have no clue whatsoever or take the time to figure it out before you post your stupid comments.

[President]

Just a simple case of greed on the part of the group. Obviously the group (and later the Guild Leadership of Divinity) knew they were doing something wrong (Camp rules or Ethics or whatever) if they let the Enchanter roll for the sword and then later gave it back to him. All was fine and dandy with the group waiting and letting all the frogs spawn until the King pops with the sword and they go into whore mode with "OMG WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LEWTZ ITS OUR CAMP NOW IF WE BREAK THE SPAWN"

To the above poster...Are you just a complete fucking idiot? Do you know of the spell "Pacify" or "Calm"? Yes he was planning on leaving because THATS THE FUCKING AGREEMENT HE MADE WITH THEM.

An Enchanter can kill King/PH/roamer in the room and nothing else then afk for 25 minutes until the next spawn. If an Enchanter binds near the zone out yes he can zone out and be back within 20 seconds depending on load times. I didn't think this was some super secret strategy but obviously some of you have no clue whatsoever or take the time to figure it out before you post your stupid comments.

Well.. Thanks for that post... Anyone with a brain have anything to add to this discussion?

[Skope]

Treats, you bring up a good point, but unfortunately it's already answered. How and whether this pertains to the situation at hand I frankly don't know and don't care.

When a player zones they lose it, period. As an enchanter you don't have to zone to hold/clear that camp, you do it because it makes it easier.

Had I been there, you'd better believe he wouldn't have had another shot. If that's how you choose to clear it, you'd better find another way that doesn't invite such controversy.

[Daldolma]

As low as it is to take a mob when someone zones for 60 seconds, it's just as low to take a mob from a group who was getting replacements and had been camping the mob for X amount of time with players that needed it.

I don't agree. If you'll take him at face value on what I consider a non-contentious point, he was bound at king safe hall. That means that he could have gated in or even logged in for the first time just minutes before beginning to clear the camp. And having spent levels 29 to 42 in Lower Guk, I can vouch for the fact that King is rarely camped by a group. It's entirely possible he had no idea that a group had just wiped there. If you arrive at a vacant camp with a full respawn, I don't believe you're obligated to call a CC for it. I also don't believe the Divinity group would have had any right to actually claim King in a CC, anyway, given that they were not there at the moment.

It sucks, but it happens all the time -- you wipe, and by the time you re-gather, your camp is taken. At least in my estimation, it's not really poor form on the part of the new party claiming the camp. I don't see anything wrong with what the enchanter did -- I really don't. I just see him trying to accommodate a group. If he had told them to piss off, and that he now had the camp, they likely would have gone somewhere else and never would have been there to steal the King in the first place. For his generosity, he was awarded with aggravation.

I really don't mean to point fingers, because in the end, everyone did what was right, and I don't think it's fair to condemn wrongs that were righted. But I don't believe it's fair to crap on Shewz. I don't know him in-game, and I actually have had much better experiences with Divinity than WI -- so believe me when I say that I'm not biased. I just feel like he's being victimized due to the overwhelming bias most people have against plat-farming solo'ers, when in reality, he was trying to accommodate the group and keep everyone happy.

[President]

I don't agree. If you'll take him at face value on what I consider a non-contentious point, he was bound at king safe hall. That means that he could have gated in or even logged in for the first time just minutes before beginning to clear the camp. And having spent levels 29 to 42 in Lower Guk, I can vouch for the fact that King is rarely camped by a group. It's entirely possible he had no idea that a group had just wiped there. If you arrive at a vacant camp with a full respawn, I don't believe you're obligated to call a CC for it. I also don't believe the Divinity group would have had any right to actually claim King in a CC, anyway, given that they were not there at the moment.

I think that part is vague. I know that if I am moving to a camp that we (mostly) know isn't taken due to no response to CC, I would respond to someone else's CC as I was moving there. Alternatively, if I was moving up to grab a replacement, and during that time someone called CC, I would respond to the camp I am at. Technically, due to the rules, the camp wouldn't be "mine" If I wasn't there, but that's where the "exploiting the camp rules in your benefit" comes in.

It is possible to have no idea a group just wiped there, unless they come back and say "Hey weve been here for a while we just had to go get replacements and had a problem on the way." Sure, it's somewhat generous to say "Ok, I'll only take one more spawn and it's yours" and I appreciate that Shewz would have done that, but just giving the camp back to them would have been the "nice" thing to do. A while back I took a group down to the Magi in LGUK after no one responded to CC, we show up, its popped, and started pulling. An enchanter showed up and said he was camping it, so we ported out. Sure, I could have "exploited the camp rules" and made that camp ours, but that would have been the dick thing to do.

It sucks, but it happens all the time -- you wipe, and by the time you re-gather, your camp is taken. At least in my estimation, it's not really poor form on the part of the new party claiming the camp. I don't see anything wrong with what the enchanter did -- I really don't. I just see him trying to accommodate a group. If he had told them to piss off, and that he now had the camp, they likely would have gone somewhere else and never would have been there to steal the King in the first place. For his generosity, he was awarded with aggravation.

I am not sure how you can completely say that its not poor form for a group/enchanter to snake another camp because the group that was there was trying to replace two people. Sure, he could have said piss off, but again that's exploiting the camp rules in your favor, and, a "dick" move. However, it was nice of him to say he will leave after 1 more clear.

I really don't mean to point fingers, because in the end, everyone did what was right, and I don't think it's fair to condemn wrongs that were righted. But I don't believe it's fair to crap on Shewz. I don't know him in-game, and I actually have had much better experiences with Divinity than WI -- so believe me when I say that I'm not biased. I just feel like he's being victimized due to the overwhelming bias most people have against plat-farming solo'ers, when in reality, he was trying to accommodate the group and keep everyone happy.

It might not be fair to crap all OVER Shewz, but it might be fair to crap on him a little bit. I'd say hes partly being victimized due to being a plat-farming solo'er, and partly being victimized because he exploited the camp rules in his favor.

Here's kind of how I see it.

1. Group has been at king camp responding to CC's for X amount of time, has to replace two people, and has a little trouble doing so and has to CR while getting two people.

2. Enchanter logs/gate's in and sees that the camp is spawned/mostly spawned, and no one is around. Decides to clear camp.

3. Group returns to see an enchanter sitting at their camp with the PH killed. Argument starts about whose camp it is. Enchanter agrees to leave after 1 clear.

4. For some reason, enchanter lets the whole thing pop (don't buy his story), and the mith 2h pops.

5. Enchanter is unable to kill king without zoning twice(or, in a reasonable amount of time), at which time the group uses the same camp rules to claim it as theirs, the same thing the enchanter did to them.

6. Arguing continues, group says ok, well lets roll for it.

7. Enchanter losses roll, comes to forums to complain.

[Stepy]

"To the above poster...Are you just a complete fucking idiot? Do you know of the spell "Pacify" or "Calm"? Yes he was planning on leaving because THATS THE FUCKING AGREEMENT HE MADE WITH THEM."

While we are throwing around the term 'idiot'... think before you type, what does "pacify" or "calm" have to do with letting all mobs respawn on a camp you claim you are soloing?
Either you would have to be spitful in letting a camp fully respawn for the group you made this fabulous agreement with but changed your mind about leaving once you seen the named spawned.
Choice #2 you want a full spawn so you can dazzle the crowd with your skills at rebreaking a camp you already broken.

[Auvdar]

1. Group has been at king camp responding to CC's for X amount of time, has to replace two people, and has a little trouble doing so and has to CR while getting two people.

2. Enchanter logs/gate's in and sees that the camp is spawned/mostly spawned, and no one is around. Decides to clear camp.

3. Group returns to see an enchanter sitting at their camp with the PH killed. Argument starts about whose camp it is. Enchanter agrees to leave after 1 clear.

4. For some reason, enchanter lets the whole thing pop (don't buy his story), and the mith 2h pops.

5. Enchanter is unable to kill king without zoning twice(or, in a reasonable amount of time), at which time the group uses the same camp rules to claim it as theirs, the same thing the enchanter did to them.

6. Arguing continues, group says ok, well lets roll for it.

7. Enchanter losses roll, comes to forums to complain.

You forgot..

8. Autum gave Shewz the sword.

What exactly are you mental midgets arguing about in here?

[Nocte]

Sorry for the compression quality. I blame Photobucket. I can email the originals if you'd prefer.







http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000005.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000006.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000007.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000008.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000009.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000010.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000011.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000012.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/electricnic/EQ000013.jpg

[President]

So they were still going to give Shewz the King even after he zoned once.. But after zoning a second time pulled the same camp rules on Shewz that Shewz pulled on them... THEN let Shewz roll for it.. and Shewz lost and came crying to the forums...

Nice...

[nicemace]

protip: calm lasts 3 mins and works on all the mobs in the king room.

calm everything and charm bok then kill roaming dar in the hallway. once dar is dead re-calm and pull king to hall, control dmg on pet with whirl. dont need to zone/camp to let pet heal.

[Stepy]

Reading those logs it was apparent they were patient and gave plenty of opportunity I believe they were sincere in letting the chanter having her shot. It seems the chanter was having a little trouble with spawns and kept zoning despite claiming to have broken the camp. It was nice of the to give her a shot at winning the sword and then later gave it to her anyway, happy selling. Aside from showing the chanter plenty of courtesy she still came here and started a flame anyway.

[Trimm]

Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

[Nocte]

Reading those logs it was apparent they were patient and gave plenty of opportunity I believe they were sincere in letting the chanter having her shot. It seems the chanter was having a little trouble with spawns and kept zoning despite claiming to have broken the camp. It was nice of the to give her a shot at winning the sword and then later gave it to her anyway, happy selling. Aside from showing the chanter plenty of courtesy she still came here and started a flame anyway.

I have to admit that this is the opposite reaction I expected from my posted screenshots. I think my group threw out integrity and acted like a bunch of greedy children because the item in question was valuable.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Looks like the group were mindful of the rules the entire time and careful not to violate them. Shews gave up the camp when he zoned. Just like they gave up the camp when they left it and Shews moved in. And the whole ridiculous BS was making Nocte sick to his stomach, and I don't blame him.

Douchebag move to claim the camp after the enchanter zones?

Douchebag move for a solo caster to claim the camp after a group wipes and is doing CR?

Douchebag move to reneg on an agreement made by an enchanter who had the rights to the camp who then lost those rights when he zoned?

Douchebag move for a solo caster to go after phat lewts he can't even use over a group that I presume contains at least one melee who can?

Douchebaggery is all relative and subjective.

So we're left with the camping rules -- at least those can be quantified objectively. Lesson learned: if you want to maintain your camp, do not zone. Do anything BUT zone. Otherwise, you lose your camp. Unless the new made-up rule now is groups can zone out ad infinitum and retain their camps without being present at the camp.

[soup]

Looks like the group were mindful of the rules the entire time and careful not to violate them. Shews gave up the camp when he zoned. Just like they gave up the camp when they left it and Shews moved in. And the whole ridiculous BS was making Nocte sick to his stomach, and I don't blame him.

Douchebag move to claim the camp after the enchanter zones?

Douchebag move for a solo caster to claim the camp after a group wipes and is doing CR?

Douchebag move to reneg on an agreement made by an enchanter who had the rights to the camp who then lost those rights when he zoned?

Douchebag move for a solo caster to go after phat lewts he can't even use over a group that I presume contains at least one melee who can?

Douchebaggery is all relative and subjective.

So we're left with the camping rules -- at least those can be quantified objectively. Lesson learned: if you want to maintain your camp, do not zone. Do anything BUT zone. Otherwise, you lose your camp. Unless the new made-up rule now is groups can zone out ad infinitum and retain their camps without being present at the camp.
Even Nocte, the cleric from the group, is saying his group acted like greedy children because the item in question was valuable, but you're STILL going on with this "HE ZONED HE LOST IT" shit.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shewz View Post
Autum gave me the sword, so, guess it's all null and void at this point.

I wouldn't call it null and void... I never want anyone in any of my groups feel obligated to hand over loot some solo caster is trying to extort out of us after they zone and give up rights to the camp.

Shewz shouldn't have the sword. He gave up rights to the camp when he zoned. He couldn't fulfill his end of the "deal" because he lost rights to the camp, the very rights which would allow him to fulfill his end of the agreement.

[President]

Even Nocte, the cleric from the group, is saying his group acted like greedy children because the item in question was valuable, but you're STILL going on with this "HE ZONED HE LOST IT" shit.

The same thing can be said about Shewz. A greedy child trying to take a camp from a group CR'ing that has melee in the group that needs the item.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Even Nocte, the cleric from the group, is saying his group acted like greedy children because the item in question was valuable, but you're STILL going on with this "HE ZONED HE LOST IT" shit.

Nocte's subjective opinion is his own. I'm going by the facts.

[soup]

The same thing can be said about Shewz. A greedy child trying to take a camp from a group CR'ing that has melee in the group that needs the item.

That's good and dandy that some random person on the forums who wasn't involved is saying that, but let's go over it again.

Nocte, the cleric from the group in question, said he felt his group members were throwing integrity out the window and acting like greedy children. He has every reason to be biased in favor of the group, and he still says that. He was there from start to finish, saw every bit of group chat, etc. He's in a FAR better position to say how people were acting than either you or I are.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I have to admit that this is the opposite reaction I expected from my posted screenshots. I think my group threw out integrity and acted like a bunch of greedy children because the item in question was valuable.


That's bullshit, Nocte. Elisa was giving a play-by-play on the server camp rules in those screenshots. She/he knew exactly who had rights to the camp and when. There's a difference between "acting like greedy children" and being assertive and sticking up for your groupmates so you don't get walked all over by someone trying to play the "oh i claimed the camp cuz you left, but um, hey i left too but the camp is somehow still mine, remember that agreement we hadddddddddd??? right guys? right??????" game.

[Skope]

The rules are simple, if you zone out you lose the camp. That much should be clear. This should be restated for future reference in an attempt to clear any more cases like this that should certainly arise. If you leave the zone you lose the camp! If that's your strategy, then you need to tweak it in such a manner that you'll remain in the zone, and preferably in the area of your camp (which you should be anyway).

[President]

That's good and dandy that some random person on the forums who wasn't involved is saying that, but let's go over it again.

Nocte, the cleric from the group in question, said he felt his group members were throwing integrity out the window and acting like greedy children. He has every reason to be biased in favor of the group, and he still says that. He was there from start to finish, saw every bit of group chat, etc. He's in a FAR better position to say how people were acting than either you or I are.

Nocte can say anything he wants. He thinks they were childish for taking the camp back from someone who took it from them. That his opinion, he can have it. It doesn't change the fact that the group watched Shewz zone twice before going after the king so that a MELEE GROUP MEMBER WHO NEEDED THE ITEM could use it INSTEAD OF AN ENCHANTER WHO TOOK THE CAMP FROM A CR'ING GROUP.

[YendorLootmonkey]

That's good and dandy that some random person on the forums who wasn't involved is saying that, but let's go over it again.

Nocte, the cleric from the group in question, said he felt his group members were throwing integrity out the window and acting like greedy children. He has every reason to be biased in favor of the group, and he still says that. He was there from start to finish, saw every bit of group chat, etc. He's in a FAR better position to say how people were acting than either you or I are.

What level is your enchanter, soup? ;)

[soup]

What level is your enchanter, soup? ;)

level 0

but making irrelevant assumptions about people is pretty cool I will admit

[President]

"oh i claimed the camp cuz you left, but um, hey i left too but the camp is somehow still mine, remember that agreement we hadddddddddd??? right guys? right??????"

I like this.

[YendorLootmonkey]

level 0

but making irrelevant assumptions about people is pretty cool I will admit

I would say it is a fairly relevant discussion and explain a lot of your poor logic here where you feel that:

- somehow an enchanter taking a camp from a CRing group with a melee character who could use the mith 2h is magically not a douchebag move

- somehow an enchanter is allowed to zone and maintain a camp despite clear rules that dictate you must retain a presence at a camp to claim it

- somehow a group that claims the camp after the enchanter zones and gives up his presence at the camp are the douchebags in this situation.

And I understand exactly where Nocte is coming from, because I've been in his place before. I don't want to spend my time on EQ arguing or fighting over digital pixels. It makes me sick to my stomach when a situation like this comes up, because no matter how closely you try to follow the rules we have for these things, someone is always going to try to twist the rules in their favor and try to make you look like the douchebag. But I think it's weak to sell out his group for being "greedy children" when all they were doing was being mindful of the rules and not being spineless doormats about it.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I like this.

I thought it was the best way to describe how ridiculous this looks from the non-enchanter point of view... haha

[Nocte]

But I think it's weak to sell out his group for being "greedy children" when all they were doing was being mindful of the rules and not being spineless doormats about it.

Sell out? I'm sorry, what exactly am I getting for posting this? I'm poor as hell in mediocre gear, and I've probably pissed off half the guild I'm still an app for, so how am I selling out? I didn't get shit except my name dragged through the mud for something I didn't want to be a part of.

Reputation is the only true currency we have here. Spend it wisely.

[Stepy]

"I have to admit that this is the opposite reaction I expected from my posted screen shots. I think my group threw out integrity and acted like a bunch of greedy children because the item in question was valuable."


In every group and guild there will be some macho posturing I don't let that be the foremost point of my opinion. The fact there was an attempt to be fair and patient, to an extent, and taking action when it seemed like the chanter was going to take attempt after attempt. It wasn't like the overall focus of the guild was to just take over the camp without consideration to the chanter.

[astarothel]

What level is your enchanter, soup? ;)


level 0

but making irrelevant assumptions about people is pretty cool I will admit

True, I guess it's really about possession. I mean you only need to borrow someone elses enchanter.

[President]

Sell out? I'm sorry, what exactly am I getting for posting this? I'm poor as hell in mediocre gear, and I've probably pissed off half the guild I'm still an app for, so how am I selling out? I didn't get shit except my name dragged through the mud for something I didn't want to be a part of.

Reputation is the only true currency we have here. Spend it wisely.

Everyone was poor at 40, cept my Jew enchanter room mate. You haven't pissed off half the guild your an app for. Thus far, no one with a brain would consider your name being dragged through mud. He is stating you are "selling out," though probably a bit overboard of a term, for saying your group was a bunch of greedy children when In many peoples eyes it looked as if they were just fighting for the same camp that got taken for them.

Really, I can't see how the "greedy" term can even be used when you are trying to get an item for someone in your group who can actually use it, versus an enchanter who can't.

[Skope]

The only mistake they made was giving this chanter mixed messages (and Pallie's attitude as well). He left the zone, whereas they were there and the sword dropped. Quite frankly, whether or not they told him he can have 1 more attempt doesn't matter, he zoned twice and he wasn't there when they were at the camp. The rules were always on the group's side, despite what anyone else in this thread thinks. Because it doesn't matter, it holds no water. They were there, he wasn't. They got the kill, and according to the rules it should be theirs.

But somehow he has the sword, and somehow they're the bad guys. The big mistake was them sending him a tell in the first place. If things went differently, say they killed him and said absolutely nothing to the chanter but "you leave you lose" this wouldn't have been an incident at all. He'd have been here on the forums ranting about how he zoned and lost a camp and we'd all be laughing at him.

[soup]

I would say it is a fairly relevant discussion and explain a lot of your poor logic here where you feel that:

- somehow an enchanter taking a camp from a CRing group with a melee character who could use the mith 2h is magically not a douchebag move
We went over this. He moved in on a fully spawned camp with no knowledge of a group there that had wiped. Nothing douche bag about that. When he finds out, he offers them the camp after one PH and they agree. The nice guy move here would be to move on without doing one PH, but I'm really not seeing how offering to do one and then leaving and the group agreeing is a douche bag move.

- somehow an enchanter is allowed to zone and maintain a camp despite clear rules that dictate you must retain a presence at a camp to claim it They made an honorable deal and never made a stipulation about zoning forfeits the deal.


- somehow a group that claims the camp after the enchanter zones and gives up his presence at the camp are the douchebags in this situation.
Once again, they made a deal, 100% ready to poach the camp if they saw any way the rules would allow them to toss their deal out the window.

And I understand exactly where Nocte is coming from, because I've been in his place before. I don't want to spend my time on EQ arguing or fighting over digital pixels. It makes me sick to my stomach when a situation like this comes up, because no matter how closely you try to follow the rules we have for these things, someone is always going to try to twist the rules in their favor and try to make you look like the douchebag. But I think it's weak to sell out his group for being "greedy children" when all they were doing was being mindful of the rules and not being spineless doormats about it.

Or maybe he places some value in honorable deals and being courteous to that extent and expects the people he plays with to not make deals just to try and exploit the rules to get out of them.

BTW the fact that you think what class I play is relevant to my logic is pretty lol. It's like some kind of red herring/ad hominem hybrid.

[Stepy]

I agree with that sentiment, there is a difference between "greedy children" and posturing. I noticed a lot were being fair and a few were pushing for more drastic measures but didn't act, i consider this normal behavior and not Representative of being bad people.

[soup]

True, I guess it's really about possession. I mean you only need to borrow someone elses enchanter.

Actually I think enchanter is the only class I have never made or played or even logged onto, lol

[Stepy]

Let ths thread be a lesson to all of you, always invite a necro to FD and hold the camp in case of a wipe! Forget a monk or SK they would sell the camp to the highest bidder first chance they got. :D

[soup]

Let me reiterate my stance here:

The biggest mistake anyone made was when the group agreed to let the enchanter do a round then take over. They should have either told him to fuck off, or they should have agreed and let him actually have a chance at engaging the mob. Making the agreement then taking the camp anyway is where the douche baggery and lack of integrity comes from.

I'd also say that telling the enchanter to fuck off from the beginning would be much more inline with "Not being spineless and getting walked over" or however that was put earlier. Striking an arrangement then looking for any reason to convince themselves that the enchanter failed is when things went sour.

[President]

Let me reiterate my stance here:

The biggest mistake anyone made was when the group agreed to let the enchanter do a round then take over. They should have either told him to fuck off, or they should have agreed and let him actually have a chance at engaging the mob. Making the agreement then taking the camp anyway is where the douche baggery and lack of integrity comes from.

I'd also say that telling the enchanter to fuck off from the beginning would be much more inline with "Not being spineless and getting walked over" or however that was put earlier. Striking an arrangement then looking for any reason to convince themselves that the enchanter failed is when things went sour.

I agree with most of this, a deal should never have been made. If the group walked up, didn't say anything, and took the camp the first time the enchanter zoned, nothing would be wrong. If the enchanter did come make a post, he would, as someone else said, get laughed at.

Though, I don't think they made an agreement and then looked for "any way they could to take it from him." From what I gather from logs, they said he could have the next spawn. Then, the group notices that hes not even in the zone anymore. They discuss just killing the king, but someone even says, whatever lets clear the adds he can take the king. They see him zone AGAIN, and go well fucking-a, just kill the damn thing. They kill the thing, the enchanter comes and bitches, and they say ok well lets roll for it. The enchanter LOSES the roll, and comes to QQ on the forum instead of attempting to reach an officer of the guild in question.

[YendorLootmonkey]

When he finds out, he offers them the camp after one PH and they agree.

Come on. They agree because it is their best interest to do so because the enchanter has the camp at that point. Elisa recognizes that the enchanter rightfully has the camp in the screenshots of groupchat Nocte posted, because the group was not present at the camp. They have no idea how long he's willing to stay, so the best option for them, when they don't have rights to the camp, is to agree to his offer. Come on. Who here would NOT take that offer? The alternative being what... the enchanter camps it all night out of spite, depriving them of the camp altogether?

The nice guy move here would be to move on without doing one PH

Correct. But we play on P1999, so of course that doesn't happen here, so we get *this*.

They made an honorable deal and never made a stipulation about zoning forfeits the deal.

They made an honorable deal that the enchanter would hand the camp, which he had rights to at the time, over to them after one PH. Now we're suggesting you also have to stipulate every little contingency? I would think that any rational person would agree that if you no longer have rights to the camp (i.e. because you zoned), then you no longer have an agreement to hand over something to them which is no longer yours. I know you want to debate this until we are both blue in the face, but you cannot make an agreement to hand over a camp to a group after one PH if you no longer have rights to the camp. So either you're saying you can make agreements on a camp you don't have rights too, or that somehow the enchanter did not lose rights to that camp when he zoned, even though it plainly says in the server rules you have to maintain a presence at that camp, which someone in the groupchat also correctly pointed out.

Once again, they made a deal, 100% ready to poach the camp if they saw any way the rules would allow them to toss their deal out the window.

Again, how does the deal exist any longer when the enchanter gave up his rights to the camp when he left? By your logic, the enchanter could have died, bound in Erudin, and had to run an hour or more to get back there, and because of the integrity of the deal, the group needed to wait until he got back to clear that PH they made the agreement on. Completely ridiculous and you know it.

BTW the fact that you think what class I play is relevant to my logic is pretty lol. It's like some kind of red herring/ad hominem hybrid.

Thanks... glad I gave you a little lol to brighten your day.

[Stepy]

I don't see where they were looking for any excuse to take the camp it was quite to the contrary they were sending tell to find out what was going on with the chanter. It's not like they bum rushed the camp and took it over they gave a first and second chance and still the chanter failed and zoned.
If the camp was broken they why the need for the chanter to rebreak a full spawn well that answer seems simple. The chanter was going to reward the groups courtesy with waiting for full respawn before leaving but changed mind when the king spawned.

[soup]

I agree with most of this, a deal should never have been made. If the group walked up, didn't say anything, and took the camp the first time the enchanter zoned, nothing would be wrong. If the enchanter did come make a post, he would, as someone else said, get laughed at.

Though, I don't think they made an agreement and then looked for "any way they could to take it from him." From what I gather from logs, they said he could have the next spawn. Then, the group notices that hes not even in the zone anymore. They discuss just killing the king, but someone even says, whatever lets clear the adds he can take the king. They see him zone AGAIN, and go well fucking-a, just kill the damn thing. They kill the thing, the enchanter comes and bitches, and they say ok well lets roll for it. The enchanter LOSES the roll, and comes to QQ on the forum instead of attempting to reach an officer of the guild in question.
What also fucked it too was that when they made the deal, I'm pretty sure NO ONE, on either side, expected the next spawn to actually be the king with the damn 2hander. "Ehh, might as well agree to it, since it's not like the next one will be the king with the sword anyway, and this way we look like good, reasonable people." ..... "OH SHIT IT IS THE KING WITH THE SWORD, shit just got real!"

[YendorLootmonkey]

What also fucked it too was that when they made the deal, I'm pretty sure NO ONE, on either side, expected the next spawn to actually be the king with the damn 2hander. "Ehh, might as well agree to it, since it's not like the next one will be the king with the sword anyway, and this way we look like good, reasonable people." ..... "OH SHIT IT IS THE KING WITH THE SWORD, shit just got real!"

LOL, yep... worst possible thing that could have happened. The Random Number Generator can be a hateful bitch sometimes. ;)

[President]

What also fucked it too was that when they made the deal, I'm pretty sure NO ONE, on either side, expected the next spawn to actually be the king with the damn 2hander. "Ehh, might as well agree to it, since it's not like the next one will be the king with the sword anyway, and this way we look like good, reasonable people." ..... "OH SHIT IT IS THE KING WITH THE SWORD, shit just got real!"

I know, and that's where I find the situation kind of fucked. If I was in the enchanters shoes in that situation, I probably would have asked if anyone in the group needed the item. If they did, I would have just handed it over, though I care much less about gear/plat than most people on this server. If no one needed it, I would have offered to roll against the group on the enchanter.

I understand he is trying to make $.. but it's not like he spent an hour there clearing it before the group showed up after CR.

[Stepy]

Still the fact is they allowed two failed attempts by Enc. and they took the spawn, and then gave her a crack at the lotto.

[soup]

I know, and that's where I find the situation kind of fucked. If I was in the enchanters shoes in that situation, I probably would have asked if anyone in the group needed the item. If they did, I would have just handed it over, though I care much less about gear/plat than most people on this server. If no one needed it, I would have offered to roll against the group on the enchanter.

I understand he is trying to make $.. but it's not like he spent an hour there clearing it before the group showed up after CR.

I like to think I would do the same, but honestly it's hard to say. Guess it really depends on how they were acting.

If they wait patiently of to the side, exp'ing as they said their main goal was, and I killed the king and got the sword and saw that the 2H user in the group is using a a silvery war axe or whatever low end crap someone might have at that point, I like to think I'd give it to them. On the flip side, if they're raging at me, I'll do the opposite and try to flame my way into possession of the sword or call them out as being douche bags.

Hell at this point I wish I could solo camp king to try and get one for Autumn since they actually gave it to Shewz after this spectacle. That's pretty cool, assuming they did it on their own accord and not under some kind of guild pressure or whatever.

[soup]

^ I mean, it's still cool if it was because of guild pressure, but if it was completely by Autumn's own accord, that's some really cool, stand-up stuff there.

[President]

I like to think I would do the same, but honestly it's hard to say. Guess it really depends on how they were acting.

If they wait patiently of to the side, exp'ing as they said their main goal was, and I killed the king and got the sword and saw that the 2H user in the group is using a a silvery war axe or whatever low end crap someone might have at that point, I like to think I'd give it to them. On the flip side, if they're raging at me, I'll do the opposite and try to flame my way into possession of the sword or call them out as being douche bags.

Hell at this point I wish I could solo camp king to try and get one for Autumn since they actually gave it to Shewz after this spectacle. That's pretty cool, assuming they did it on their own accord and not under some kind of guild pressure or whatever.

True, I guess if I was in the enchanters shoes it would never have gotten to that point I would have just given the camp back... Though your right if they were total dicks It may have changed my mind, though it appears Slappie was the only one really acting irrational.

It doesn't appear Autum was under any guild pressure, but gave the item back after the post was made.

If I had any time to play Id go down there to help her get one... but that unfortunately doesn't exist!

[President]

It doesn't appear Autum was under any guild pressure, but gave the item back after the post was made.

That is, to my knowledge, I don't know what went on in guild chat during the ordeal, but Divinity forums did not suggest we pressured her to give it back.

[Daldolma]

LOL, you guys have got to be kidding me. You see one group member acknowledge that an enchanter needs to zone to solo the camp, you see them make the agreement (that the enchanter can have the next cycle in return for the camp), you see the enchanter tell one of their group members that he's still in the process of breaking the cycle which they agreed to let him have, and you then see the urgent call from group members to immediately rush the named mob specifically at the very instant that the enchanter zones out for the second time (because the first time, the group was too confused as to what was occurring to jump on the king in a timely manner). When the agreement is first made to let him have the next pop, everyone but Slappie agrees, basically ignoring the possibility that the named pops with the desired item. Only when the named pops with the desired item does the Divinity group decide that the agreement no longer matters.

Basically, those screenshots prove every assumption I had made earlier, when observing that it was of extremely poor character, though not against any server rules, for the group in question to have done what they did. At that point, the response was that there's no way to know if that's truly what happened. Now that we do know that that is exactly what happened, and that the group did in fact know that the enchanter was going to need to be hopping in and out of the zone to handle his cycle (which, again, they agreed to let him have), the goal posts have moved again, and now it's all about the server rules.

Shit, you even have two of the group members -- one explicitly, and one tacitly (by handing over the sword) -- admitting their own fault. Ironically, it seems to be the two group members with the most to gain, as Nocte is an app, and Autum could have used the sword. I applaud Nocte for her morality, and I hope that a) her status in Divinity is not in any way harmed by this, and b) the enchanter does what he can to hook her up, one way or another. IMO, as I've stated earlier on this thread, I have nothing but the respect for Divinity, and I think she's proven herself more than worthy of the guild tag just based on how she handled this situation. It doesn't take much to blindly wave the pompoms for your guild. IMO, it's a lot more impressive to call your own side out when they're doing something wrong. Hopefully she's not punished for that.

If you can't see that what the group did was wrong, you're not looking -- plain and simple. Again, this isn't about the server rules. The amateur lawyers can keep it in their pants for this thread. This is about behavior and ethics. The enchanter did nothing wrong, deceived nobody, and was generally friendly and helpful. The group did do something wrong -- they demanded a camp that wasn't theirs. They did deceive someone. They told the enchanter he could have the next spawn cycle -- knowing that he would have to zone out in order to take it (as evidenced by group chat) -- and then jumped on the mob when it happened to be a named, knowing that he was in the process of breaking the camp, rather than fleeing the camp out of desperation. And, with the exception of Nocte (and later Autum), they were not helpful or friendly. Dravyen seemed helpful and friendly, only to betray the agreement he had made by urging his group to rush the named immediately after the enchanter zoned.

This is not a matter of grey area, or of one act of douchebaggery being met with another. The enchanter did absolutely nothing that constitutes "douchebaggery". The worst thing he did was not call a CC for an often un-camped mob that was currently un-camped, and fully popped. Not exactly a crime against humanity.

[Dersk]

I understand he is trying to make $

Also, the M2H is in the hands of a guildie.

[President]

Of course he gave it to a guildie, if he had tried to sell it would have made him look retarded. Think: Thank you for Smoking & the Marlboro Man.

[soup]

Of course he gave it to a guildie, if he had tried to sell it would have made him look retarded. Think: Thank you for Smoking & the Marlboro Man.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be too hard to just pass it to an alt to sell from that character to be discrete.

[President]

LOL, you guys have got to be kidding me. You see one group member acknowledge that an enchanter needs to zone to solo the camp, you see them make the agreement (that the enchanter can have the next cycle in return for the camp), you see the enchanter tell one of their group members that he's still in the process of breaking the cycle which they agreed to let him have, and you then see the urgent call from group members to immediately rush the named mob specifically at the very instant that the enchanter zones out for the second time (because the first time, the group was too confused as to what was occurring to jump on the king in a timely manner). When the agreement is first made to let him have the next pop, everyone but Slappie agrees, basically ignoring the possibility that the named pops with the desired item. Only when the named pops with the desired item does the Divinity group decide that the agreement no longer matters.

A person suggests that is how they "solo" this room. That does not mean that they need to let the enchanter zone 5 times just to kill the room.

Basically, those screenshots prove every assumption I had made earlier, when observing that it was of extremely poor character, though not against any server rules, for the group in question to have done what they did. At that point, the response was that there's no way to know if that's truly what happened. Now that we do know that that is exactly what happened, and that the group did in fact know that the enchanter was going to need to be hopping in and out of the zone to handle his cycle (which, again, they agreed to let him have), the goal posts have moved again, and now it's all about the server rules.

Again, one person suggested that's how some enchanters camp it. Doesn't mean its how they have to let him camp it. It was also, in poor character, not to give the camp back immediately to a group who finished CR'ing that had people in the group that needed the item.

Shit, you even have two of the group members -- one explicitly, and one tacitly (by handing over the sword) -- admitting their own fault. Ironically, it seems to be the two group members with the most to gain, as Nocte is an app, and Autum could have used the sword. I applaud Nocte for her morality, and I hope that a) her status in Divinity is not in any way harmed by this, and b) the enchanter does what he can to hook her up, one way or another. IMO, as I've stated earlier on this thread, I have nothing but the respect for Divinity, and I think she's proven herself more than worthy of the guild tag just based on how she handled this situation. It doesn't take much to blindly wave the pompoms for your guild. IMO, it's a lot more impressive to call your own side out when they're doing something wrong. Hopefully she's not punished for that.

Handing back a sword does not equal admitting fault.

If you can't see that what the group did was wrong, you're not looking -- plain and simple. Again, this isn't about the server rules. The amateur lawyers can keep it in their pants for this thread. This is about behavior and ethics. The enchanter did nothing wrong, deceived nobody, and was generally friendly and helpful. The group did do something wrong -- they demanded a camp that wasn't theirs. They did deceive someone. They told the enchanter he could have the next spawn cycle -- knowing that he would have to zone out in order to take it (as evidenced by group chat) -- and then jumped on the mob when it happened to be a named, knowing that he was in the process of breaking the camp, rather than fleeing the camp out of desperation. And, with the exception of Nocte (and later Autum), they were not helpful or friendly. Dravyen seemed helpful and friendly, only to betray the agreement he had made by urging his group to rush the named immediately after the enchanter zoned.

This is not a matter of grey area, or of one act of douchebaggery being met with another. The enchanter did absolutely nothing that constitutes "douchebaggery". The worst thing he did was not call a CC for an often un-camped mob that was currently un-camped, and fully popped. Not exactly a crime against humanity.

People know the group was somewhat at fault, but saying that the enchanter did absolutely nothing wrong or dickish is complete bs.

[President]

Yeah, but it wouldn't be too hard to just pass it to an alt to sell from that character to be discrete.

It wouldn't, but it also wouldn't allow him to come on here and say how he gave it to the guildie to make himself look better.

[Daldolma]

If one more person says that the enchanter "failed", I'm going to have a conniption fit. Do you play EverQuest? This is how an enchanter solo's. Everyone, including Elisa (as evidenced by her quote from group-chat, when she states that the enchanter will have to zone to handle the camp, at which point they can just reclaim it) understands that. It's not a failure. It's a strategy. You zone to heal your charm, come back, re-charm, continue the clear. It takes 45 seconds. It's faster for an enchanter to charm, kill, zone, re-charm, continue killing than it is for most other solo'ers to root rot. The enchanter did not fail, he did not wipe, he did not need help. He was handling everything just fine; by the letter of the law, he did not own the camp (unless, of course, you acknowledge that an agreement between parties supersedes the server rules, in which case he did still own the camp for that cycle.) But by any rational observation from anyone that knows the game even a little bit (as Elisa clearly does, and as Nocte and Autumn clearly understood) he was in control, and his 45 second absence from a camp in the process of being broken was not equivalent to the 20+ minute absence of a group that had wiped, CR'd, and then picked up new members from the zone line.

It would be somewhat understandable, from an ethical standpoint, if the Divinity members did not understand at the point of the debacle that the enchanter needed to strategically zone to solo the camp. BUT THEY DID. Elisa says as much in group-chat, after the agreement is made, but before the King is stolen. They knew what he was doing. They knew he had to do it. They made the agreement knowing that he would be doing this. But then the named spawned with a valuable sword, and the agreement went out the window, and the Divinity members hid behind willful ignorance of the method of his zoning.

I footnote this post with an apology for referring to the group as "Divinity members", because I do not believe their actions reflect fairly upon Divinity as a whole, and I gladly acknowledge that at least two members of the group (Nocte and Autumn) both went above and beyond the typical call of morality. I simply use "Divinity members" as shorthand because they were in fact Divinity members, and "the group" grows repetitive.

[President]

If one more person says that the enchanter "failed", I'm going to have a conniption fit. Do you play EverQuest? This is how an enchanter solo's. Everyone, including Elisa (as evidenced by her quote from group-chat, when she states that the enchanter will have to zone to handle the camp, at which point they can just reclaim it) understands that. It's not a failure. It's a strategy. You zone to heal your charm, come back, re-charm, continue the clear. It takes 45 seconds. It's faster for an enchanter to charm, kill, zone, re-charm, continue killing than it is for most other solo'ers to root rot. The enchanter did not fail, he did not wipe, he did not need help. He was handling everything just fine; by the letter of the law, he did not own the camp (unless, of course, you acknowledge that an agreement between parties supersedes the server rules, in which case he did still own the camp for that cycle.) But by any rational observation from anyone that knows the game even a little bit (as Elisa clearly does, and as Nocte and Autumn clearly understood) he was in control, and his 45 second absence from a camp in the process of being broken was not equivalent to the 20+ minute absence of a group that had wiped, CR'd, and then picked up new members from the zone line.

It would be somewhat understandable, from an ethical standpoint, if the Divinity members did not understand at the point of the debacle that the enchanter needed to strategically zone to solo the camp. BUT THEY DID. Elisa says as much in group-chat, after the agreement is made, but before the King is stolen. They knew what he was doing. They knew he had to do it. They made the agreement knowing that he would be doing this. But then the named spawned with a valuable sword, and the agreement went out the window, and the Divinity members hid behind willful ignorance of the method of his zoning.

I footnote this post with an apology for referring to the group as "Divinity members", because I do not believe their actions reflect fairly upon Divinity as a whole, and I gladly acknowledge that at least two members of the group (Nocte and Autumn) both went above and beyond the typical call of morality. I simply use "Divinity members" as shorthand because they were in fact Divinity members, and "the group" grows repetitive.

He does not "need" to zone it to clear the camp. As another enchanter in this post stated, you only need to charm one mob, kill a roamer, and then pull king to the hall and kill it.

[Daldolma]

By the way, if we're going to delve into the letter of the law, nobody owns the Quillmane camp, or the AC camp in SRo. That doesn't mean you're not a douchebag if you know a guy has been tracking and killing PHs for 4 hours, but you see Quillmane pop and down his ass. You're in total compliance with server rules. And you're a dick. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[President]

It's also worth noting that they discussed taking the camp back after the enchanter messed up BEFORE the mith 2h spawned.

[President]

By the way, if we're going to delve into the letter of the law, nobody owns the Quillmane camp, or the AC camp in SRo. That doesn't mean you're not a douchebag if you know a guy has been tracking and killing PHs for 4 hours, but you see Quillmane pop and down his ass. You're in total compliance with server rules. And you're a dick. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Which is the point many of us have made. Shewz was in compliance with the server rules, but somewhat dickish for not handing the camp back when the CR'ing group showed up.

The group was in compliance with the server rules when they engaged the mob after Shewz zoned out, but they were also dickish for doing so.

What I find interesting, after both groups being dicks, that they still offered a roll off which Shewz lost.

[darkblade717]

So, I just want to write this little story down.

Tonight I stumbled upon the Lguk King camp fully spawned and decided to camp it. I killed the kor shamans and the king PH and the roaming dar, as enchanters do.

Then Slappie, Sernity, Elisa, Nocte, Dravyen, and Autum show up, saying they wiped and that the camp was theirs.

I say, alright I'll give you the camp after just 1 king ph spawn. I figure, I broke the camp so I deserve the chance at just one ph. And they agree, except for Slappie who hassled me about it.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2aad6hj.jpg

And then the king spawns with a mithril two handed sword.

I start pacifying mobs, charming, generally soloing how an enchanter solos. I get a kor shaman down and then decide to zone to let me and my pet regen. I'm gone for all of 20 seconds, which I figure is okay since I'm clearly breaking the camp, and I had made a deal with their group.

I come back in and continue, and end up with the king sitting in the middle of the room, and my 5% hp pet left. I need to break charm and de-aggro the pet so that it can regen to full and fight king. Fact is, it's not possible to charm 1 froglok and kill both the shamans and the king all in a row. The pet has to be zoned so it can heal.

Again, I'm gone for all of 20 seconds. That's when they decide to kill my low-hp pet mob and steal the king.

It's pretty fucked up that they waited for me to single out the king before stealing it. Apparently Elisa was tracking me and waiting for me to slip up and zone.

Ensuing conversation
http://i45.tinypic.com/28iolxi.jpg

It's pretty fucked up that Slappie tried to pull that on me.

Anyways, Dravyen decides that I can roll on it against Autum. Of course, Sernity and Slappie want it to be 6 rolls versus mine, but that doesn't happen.

Autum wins and takes the sword. And then they graciously leave me the camp. Of course, judging by how honorable their actions were before, it was pretty clear I wasn't going to get the sword even if I won the roll.

So, expect to be stabbed in the back if you strike an honest deal with Divinity. And please, don't pull the,"a couple bad apples" line, because when 6 of your members all are fine with pulling this, chances are a big chunk of the guild is slimy.

My experience with Eliesa is that she is a total fucking moron who doesn't know how to play.

[Daldolma]

He does not "need" to zone it to clear the camp. As another enchanter in this post stated, you only need to charm one mob, kill a roamer, and then pull king to the hall and kill it.

Fine, that's fair -- he didn't need to. But it's an exceedingly common strategy, one that Elisa correctly predicted he would utilize. The point is that they understood he was strategically breaking the camp. Nocte did, because he told her. The rest of the group did, because she relayed the message.

This was not a case of the enchanter requesting unreasonable patience, nor was it a case of the group attacking the King out of ignorance as to the enchanter's plans. Literally the second the enchanter zones out, one of the group members shouts in capital letters to rush the King. Why the urgency, if in fact the group member believed they were in the right? Why the urgency, if in fact they did not know the enchanter would be back in an instant? The fact that he was in another zone is a matter of semantics. He didn't run to GFay and pick up IVU pots. He was working the camp. This isn't a court of law, it's an informal arbitration of ethics.

If the group's intent was to steal the camp when he zoned, then they never should have agreed to a deal in which he could have the next spawn cycle. But you and I both know that their intent shifted drastically when the King popped with the Mithril 2-hander. If the PH pops, the group abides by their deal, the enchanter holds up his end, and everybody walks away happy.

[YendorLootmonkey]

<snip>

TLDR version:

"oh i claimed the camp cuz you left, but um, hey i gotta leave the zone in order to clear it myself, so...... yeah, don't do what I just did to you guys, because I am only leaving the camp for X amount of time, not Y amount of time like you did, so the camp is still mine, right guys? riiiggggghht?? hey guys?? why are you killing my mob????? I zoned but its still mine dudes. we had an agreementttttt!!! You know the one I had to make with you in order to even get the next PH spawn because I have to zone to clear the camp and I know damn well i would lose rights to that camp without me making some sort of agreement with you first??????"

[President]

Fine, that's fair -- he didn't need to. But it's an exceedingly common strategy, one that Elisa correctly predicted he would utilize. The point is that they understood he was strategically breaking the camp. Nocte did, because he told her. The rest of the group did, because she relayed the message.

This was not a case of the enchanter requesting unreasonable patience, nor was it a case of the group attacking the King out of ignorance as to the enchanter's plans. Literally the second the enchanter zones out, one of the group members shouts in capital letters to rush the King. Why the urgency, if in fact the group member believed they were in the right? Why the urgency, if in fact they did not know the enchanter would be back in an instant? The fact that he was in another zone is a matter of semantics. He didn't run to GFay and pick up IVU pots. He was working the camp. This isn't a court of law, it's an informal arbitration of ethics.

If the group's intent was to steal the camp when he zoned, then they never should have agreed to a deal in which he could have the next spawn cycle. But you and I both know that their intent shifted drastically when the King popped with the Mithril 2-hander. If the PH pops, the group abides by their deal, the enchanter holds up his end, and everybody walks away happy.

In agreement again, multiple people in the last few posts have stated that was the first problem they made, making some kind of "deal." Sure, the mith-2h changes things, they had been camping their for X amount of time, had to go to the zone to get two more people, and wiped in doing so and had to CR. And of course, there would be urgency. That might be his strategy, they might know that is his strategy, but he still, per the rules, he does not own the camp. Just like, per the rules, the CR'ing group did not.

I am not disputing the fact with you that the group was in the wrong, what I am disputing is your notion that the enchanter was totally and completely in the right and was an angel in this whole situation.

[Daldolma]

Which is the point many of us have made. Shewz was in compliance with the server rules, but somewhat dickish for not handing the camp back when the CR'ing group showed up.

The group was in compliance with the server rules when they engaged the mob after Shewz zoned out, but they were also dickish for doing so.

What I find interesting, after both groups being dicks, that they still offered a roll off which Shewz lost.

The difference is that the enchanter took the camp after a significant amount of time, and without prior knowledge. It was 20+ minutes. And there's no evidence that he knew the group had been there. Only after he had done a significant amount of work to clear the PH did the group return. It is only fair that he's afforded the very minimal courtesy of owning the rights to his one re-pop. It's not fair for him to do 20 minutes worth of work only to have a group show up and claim his prize. The group had been there longer, they owned the camp: fine. He agreed to that. But he owned the one re-pop that he had just cleared for. Both sides of that, IMO, represent the most fair solution.

The unfortunate fact is that his 1/100 chance of the King spawning with the Mithril 2-hander hit, and the group -- recognizing their position of power over a slower-working, more vulnerable solo'er -- stole the mob when given the opportunity.

Had the enchanter been waiting for the camp, watched the group wipe, and then swooped in, I would have been a lot closer to your point of view: an eye for an eye, basically. But that's not what happened, according to available evidence. He just stumbled upon what he very reasonably deemed an open camp, and he took it. When he was alerted that it was not, in fact, an open camp, he agreed to relinquish it, only claiming the rights to one mob that he had spent the past 15-20 minutes clearing for. I don't see that as being a dick, I really don't.

[President]

The difference is that the enchanter took the camp after a significant amount of time, and without prior knowledge. It was 20+ minutes. And there's no evidence that he knew the group had been there. Only after he had done a significant amount of work to clear the PH did the group return. It is only fair that he's afforded the very minimal courtesy of owning the rights to his one re-pop. It's not fair for him to do 20 minutes worth of work only to have a group show up and claim his prize. The group had been there longer, they owned the camp: fine. He agreed to that. But he owned the one re-pop that he had just cleared for. Both sides of that, IMO, represent the most fair solution.

The unfortunate fact is that his 1/100 chance of the King spawning with the Mithril 2-hander hit, and the group -- recognizing their position of power over a slower-working, more vulnerable solo'er -- stole the mob when given the opportunity.

Had the enchanter been waiting for the camp, watched the group wipe, and then swooped in, I would have been a lot closer to your point of view: an eye for an eye, basically. But that's not what happened, according to available evidence. He just stumbled upon what he very reasonably deemed an open camp, and he took it. When he was alerted that it was not, in fact, an open camp, he agreed to relinquish it, only claiming the rights to one mob that he had spent the past 15-20 minutes clearing for. I don't see that as being a dick, I really don't.

Need before greed. Someone in the group needed it, the enchanter did not. I really don't care that he gave it to a guildie, he basically had to at this point to make himself look better.

[Daldolma]

TLDR version:

"oh i claimed the camp cuz you left, but um, hey i gotta leave the zone in order to clear it myself, so...... yeah, don't do what I just did to you guys, because I am only leaving the camp for X amount of time, not Y amount of time like you did, so the camp is still mine, right guys? riiiggggghht?? hey guys?? why are you killing my mob????? I zoned but its still mine dudes. we had an agreementttttt!!! You know the one I had to make with you in order to even get the next PH spawn because I have to zone to clear the camp and I know damn well i would lose rights to that camp without me making some sort of agreement with you first??????"

You were better off going with the overly formal legalized arguments, even though this clearly isn't a debate regarding the rules of the server, but rather the ethics involved. Sorry some solo plat farmer pissed in your corn flakes, but not all cases are the same.

[President]

Anyway, good arguing Daldolma, im off work, see yall in R&F tomorrow!

[astarothel]

Only reason not to call a cc in lguk is if you want to snag something surreptitiously.

[Daldolma]

Anyway, good arguing Daldolma, im off work, see yall in R&F tomorrow!

Haha later man. And for what it's worth, in response to your last post, I agree that had the enchanter gone above and beyond (as Nocte and Autumn did), he would have let Autumn keep the sword. It would have been the classy move. But he wasn't wrong to hold onto it, IMO. He just didn't go above and beyond.

[Daldolma]

Only reason not to call a cc in lguk is if you want to snag something surreptitiously.

That's really not the case with King camp. I promise you, I spent like two weeks straight in Lower Guk -- King is very rarely camped. It's more trouble than it's worth for most groups. He was bound there for presumably that very reason, as are many other enchanters. You gate, you check if it's uncamped, and if it is, you nab it for awhile. If it's not, you invis and run out the portal to Inny Swamp. It's not a big deal. It's not like he waltzed into Frenzied without asking. He just gated or logged in at his bind point, a commonly empty camp.

[nicemace]

Only reason not to call a cc in lguk is if you want to snag something surreptitiously.

actually i never call CC in any zone.

when you have the gift of mobility and can go anywhere you want its easiser to just run somewhere and look.

[Daldolma]

By the way, I feel this is getting lost in the discussion: I can't say enough good things about Divinity. I would say a majority of the nicest, most helpful people I've met in game have been Divinity members. I don't believe this is a damning indictment of Divinity, or even of the individuals that may have acted inappropriately. In the end, everything was righted, and it was a sufficiently complex issue to at least excuse, if not condone, a bit of over-zealous loot-whoring.

I'm posting more in defense of the original poster than to say anything bad about anyone. I don't know Shewz, in fact I'd never even heard of him before this thread. But I think his only offense in this whole matter was bringing it to Rants and Flames after being allowed to roll, which should have brought the matter to closure IMO. I don't think he deserves to be crucified for all this when in reality, it seems like he was trying to do the right thing and was taken advantage of for it, to some degree.

The real shame is that the damn King spawned with a Mithril 2-hander, because 99% of the time, this exact situation wouldn't have even resulted in any hard feelings. But because this 1% involved a 10k sword, everyone -- from what seems like a nice guy (Shewz) to a group from a genuinely great guild -- is getting flamed for it.

[Wrei]

Wow 20 pages... of all saying the same things using different words. A few thoughts:

1. There is no need before greed. For every legit need there's 20 douchebag greed claiming need. From selling off stuff or passing it to a guildy to twinking etc... no one NEEDS anything. They all WANT something.

2. The CC call: I answered a CC call when one was shouted but never made one of my own. Some people/group lay claims to a camp while sitting at the zoneline for w/e reason. You goto a camp spot and if it's a full spawn and the camp remains empty for the next 5min (while u buff/prep) then the camp is YOURS. For every legit CR sob stories, there's 20 more greedy lies on previous ownership. Don't wipe. If you wipe, get back to camp spot quick before someone else goes there, it's quite simple.

3. The whole agreement honor thing... If your really the bigger man then you should have left before you proposed said agreement. If you really wanted the sword that badly then you should have stayed (as was your right). Don't feel you "owe" them anything because believe me, had the situation been reversed you would have been told to go cry somewhere else. At least they would have been practical enough to not make retarded agreements. Everyone in this scenario was greedy, at least own up to it. This pot calling the kettle black shit is weak.

4. You "need" to zone out, because someone in the group acknowledged that it's the best way for an enchanter to solo? You don't need to zone to solo, it's just the lazy way to play. Just like people using tab targeting instead of manual... it's just a short cut/crutch for some chanters to do.

The funny thing is this whole thread COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED had the enchanter not been a COMPLETE FAILURE and actually break the camp properly without resorting to "enchanter for dummies" guidebook.

[Shewz]

President is just trying to vilify me take blame off of Dravyen, Slappie, Elisa, and Sernity. He's saying I'm "crying" on the forums, he's implying that I knew they were on a CR before I broke the camp, he's saying I'm acting out of pure greed, calling me a liar, a child, a dick, a failure as an enchanter, and the list goes on. I hope this is as obvious to everyone else as it is to me.

I wanted to delete this thread after Autum gave the sword back, but it's apparently not an option. Now I have to defend myself because President and others want to make me the bad guy.

But it's pointless. I can keep defending myself, nitpicking every event, assembling the evidence, but really President has his agenda and can paint any picture he wants with my words, without even having witnessed the incident.

I know now to just tell groups to get bent and leave me alone.

I have to say though, one thing really bothering me is this:
"The funny thing is this whole thread COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED had the enchanter not been a COMPLETE FAILURE and actually break the camp properly without resorting to "enchanter for dummies" guidebook."

If you look closely in the logs you'll see them taking the only bok knight from the camp. I watched that happen. That's why I had to use a kor shaman, that's why I had to zone to heal it. Sorry I'm not up to your standards.

Good night.

[nicemace]

real enchanters (like me) charm the king, kill trash till its on 1% break charm then last hit like a boss.

[Stepy]

If you broke the camp and was holding it there would be no need for all this zoning back and forth to re-break.
It would seem your intention were to wait for all to respawn before leaving camp but the king spawning made you change your mind.
You continue to act as thou they are the bad people are your were the only good even after they were kind enough to give you the sword. Have a good time in EC.
I like how you say they gave it back, as if it was yours regardless.
You should appreciate that they at least gave you a shot at it and just left instead of waiting for a full spawn. Not all of them may not have had good intentions but they did wait for you too attempt to break camp again. I like to be fair about things but i don't think i would have wanted to wait till you were finally successful at your attempt to re-break.

[Stepy]

In situations like this it isn't easy to have a perfect solution either party could have done many different things including leaving the camp completely.
The fact that they reached an agreement with you and in return you decide to reciprocate with leaving with a full spawn which unfortunately lead to this mess had the King not spawned there would be no issue.

[astarothel]

By the way, if we're going to delve into the letter of the law, nobody owns the Quillmane camp, or the AC camp in SRo.

AC is one mob placeholder every 30.666 minutes. That's easily claimable. People seem to think you have to clear everything in SRo for it, yet it's a single spawn node. Quillmane has multiple spawn nodes and points, so that's a little different.

[girth]

Rules are rules. Enchanter lost camp. GG on giving up your mith2h for no reason.

[RKromwell]

Huh...

Loot aside, I figure what he was doing is an exploit. You have charmed a mob. You cannot heal that mob but know if you don't do something, the next spawn will kill your 'pet'. SO, you zone out. Mob loses charm right away and the un-natural healing they do when not being affected by a player kicks in. You zone back in, YAY to fully healed npc tank. Wouldn't it have been faster to camp out and come back in game right away?

You are taking advantage of the system by zoning out.

[soup]

Huh...

Loot aside, I figure what he was doing is an exploit. You have charmed a mob. You cannot heal that mob but know if you don't do something, the next spawn will kill your 'pet'. SO, you zone out. Mob loses charm right away and the un-natural healing they do when not being affected by a player kicks in. You zone back in, YAY to fully healed npc tank. Wouldn't it have been faster to camp out and come back in game right away?

You are taking advantage of the system by zoning out.

If you aren't just trolling and trying to stir up shit, but actually serious instead, then wow, simply wow.

rofl, wow

[darkblade717]

The difference is that the enchanter took the camp after a significant amount of time, and without prior knowledge. It was 20+ minutes. And there's no evidence that he knew the group had been there. Only after he had done a significant amount of work to clear the PH did the group return. It is only fair that he's afforded the very minimal courtesy of owning the rights to his one re-pop. It's not fair for him to do 20 minutes worth of work only to have a group show up and claim his prize. The group had been there longer, they owned the camp: fine. He agreed to that. But he owned the one re-pop that he had just cleared for. Both sides of that, IMO, represent the most fair solution.

The unfortunate fact is that his 1/100 chance of the King spawning with the Mithril 2-hander hit, and the group -- recognizing their position of power over a slower-working, more vulnerable solo'er -- stole the mob when given the opportunity.

Had the enchanter been waiting for the camp, watched the group wipe, and then swooped in, I would have been a lot closer to your point of view: an eye for an eye, basically. But that's not what happened, according to available evidence. He just stumbled upon what he very reasonably deemed an open camp, and he took it. When he was alerted that it was not, in fact, an open camp, he agreed to relinquish it, only claiming the rights to one mob that he had spent the past 15-20 minutes clearing for. I don't see that as being a dick, I really don't.

They had to have been lying, it doesn't take nearly that long to do a CR for king.

[RKromwell]

If you aren't just trolling and trying to stir up shit, but actually serious instead, then wow, simply wow.

rofl, wow


Nope, really it was the first thing that came to my mind. There is a loop hole here and it is being used. If it is on the up and up to do that, all the power to him. I've only ever played a ranger so in my book when you solo, it is kill or be killed.


I die alot.

[darkblade717]

Nope, really it was the first thing that came to my mind. There is a loop hole here and it is being used. If it is on the up and up to do that, all the power to him. I've only ever played a ranger so I have no clue what the hell I am talking about.


I die alot.

Fixed.

[soup]

Nope, really it was the first thing that came to my mind. There is a loop hole here and it is being used. If it is on the up and up to do that, all the power to him. I've only ever played a ranger so in my book when you solo, it is kill or be killed.


I die alot.

rofl, alrighty then

props for standing your ground I suppose. I'll be running to the zone if it's hopeless, lol

[RKromwell]

Depends on the zone really. If I do something stupid, why train folks at the zone in?

[soup]

Depends on the zone really. If I do something stupid, why train folks at the zone in?

Why hang out AFK at the zone in when you know people train there when in trouble? ;)

[Daldolma]

It's a borderline exploit that enchanters zone to heal their charms, agreed. But half of what makes up good EverQuest strategy is borderline exploitation. You're given the rules with which you have to work. It's not like he's duping items with a merchant or something.

When a pet user and a rogue duo, and the pet user roots the mob (thus enabling pet to tank via range aggro), that's an exploit of sorts -- the clear intent of the creators was to disallow pet tanking with other melees in group. Chain-petting mages are exploits of sorts. I doubt the game's creators had realized that a mage, when his pet was in trouble, would be better off allowing it to die and summoning a new one than attempting to heal and/or otherwise save their current. They're strategies as much as exploits.

[RKromwell]

Why hang out AFK at the zone in when you know people train there when in trouble? ;)


I try to take pitty on folks who do dumb stuff more often than I do. :D

[Gorgetrapper]

It's a borderline exploit that enchanters zone to heal their charms, agreed. But half of what makes up good EverQuest strategy is borderline exploitation. You're given the rules with which you have to work. It's not like he's duping items with a merchant or something.

When a pet user and a rogue duo, and the pet user roots the mob (thus enabling pet to tank via range aggro), that's an exploit of sorts -- the clear intent of the creators was to disallow pet tanking with other melees in group. Chain-petting mages are exploits of sorts. I doubt the game's creators had realized that a mage, when his pet was in trouble, would be better off allowing it to die and summoning a new one than attempting to heal and/or otherwise save their current. They're strategies as much as exploits.

Range agro with root an exploit? How is that not intentional? They coded it specifically to target the closest person. They could have said "fuck it" and not done anything, and root would have just made it so the mob just couldn't move but could target anyone who still had the most hate. It's a valid tactic for any classes (or even pet) to tank and allows different strategies and combination of classes to work together.

Resummoning pets instead of healing is exploiting? That's such a stupid example it's not even funny. When you have a focused earth pet at lvl 49 it comes out to roughly 4k hp. How is it logical to use a 100 mana spell to heal between 140-200hp with a spell from lvl 20 vs resummoning a pet that costs what? a malachite or two and 200 mana?
Just because they're remaking the game as it was in 1999, doesn't mean that you also have to relive the ignorance as it was back in 1999.

[Arkis]

Just because they're remaking the game as it was in 1999, doesn't mean that you also have to relive the ignorance as it was back in 1999.

Gotta admit though, this is something missing from the server that was from classic:

Complaints about other classes and nerf raging!

[Loke]

Gotta admit though, this is something missing from the server that was from classic:

Complaints about other classes and nerf raging!

Since Furor isn't here do to it, I will - "monks need to be nerfed and nerfed hard."

Pretty sure that was the quote the inspired the big "nerf monks" campaign of Luclin.

[Agaron]

Lol @ ss's
Lol @ OP being 100% legit
Lol @ Div flaming other guilds in ss's
Lol @ Div trying to defend themselves for 22 pages

I'm actually kind of glad I got rejected. Hell your recruitment staff is on point with that group of fine quality members.

[logiktrip]

Please explain the difference, and why it becomes the enchanters camp:

1. A group kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
2. An enc has claimed the camp while the first group was returning.
2. An enc kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
3. The group, noticing this discrepancy, reclaims the camp.

Regardless of your methods of soloing, this is no longer your camp. You used the rules against the group, and they used them back against you.

And finally, leave Div out of this. if this was the entire guild camping king you may have a point. Instead it comes across as drivel attempting to get as many people on your side as you possibly can....it's a weak excuse for those that know they were wrong.

[Stickyfingers]

Enchanter needs to suck less and l2notzone IMO. This wouldn't happen if he/she/it did. Also, who gives a fuck about agreements, follow the rules and don't make up your own.

[Molitoth]

What ever happened to common courtesy, when you know a person or group wiped why not let them have camp back we used to do it in the old days before greed ruined the game.

This doesn't exist anymore; everyone wants large epeen.

Also, the server rules are a joke. The only rule that should exist is:

1) Don't be a douchebag

but then we wouldn't have very much population...

[darkblade717]

Please explain the difference, and why it becomes the enchanters camp:

1. A group kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
2. An enc has claimed the camp while the first group was returning.
2. An enc kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
3. The group, noticing this discrepancy, reclaims the camp.

Regardless of your methods of soloing, this is no longer your camp. You used the rules against the group, and they used them back against you.

And finally, leave Div out of this. if this was the entire guild camping king you may have a point. Instead it comes across as drivel attempting to get as many people on your side as you possibly can....it's a weak excuse for those that know they were wrong.

Someone needs to l2memblur.

[astarothel]

The only rule that should exist is:
1) Don't be a douchebag


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

[darkblade717]

Please explain the difference, and why it becomes the enchanters camp:

1. A group kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
2. An enc has claimed the camp while the first group was returning.
2. An enc kills a mob and zones out, intent on returning.
3. The group, noticing this discrepancy, reclaims the camp.

Regardless of your methods of soloing, this is no longer your camp. You used the rules against the group, and they used them back against you.

And finally, leave Div out of this. if this was the entire guild camping king you may have a point. Instead it comes across as drivel attempting to get as many people on your side as you possibly can....it's a weak excuse for those that know they were wrong.

First group wiped, during which time they took WAY too long to regroup, enough time for Enchanter to clear the camp, with no one bothering to run down there to hold the camp while others were rezzed and such. Enchanter zoned out for mere seconds to reset his pet. Logic dictates without them saying anything immediately after zoning back in or even attempting to keep the camp that they were either A) Lying about being there in the first place B) Didn't care enough to bother to hold the camp C) Have some entitlement issues that need to be dealt with. By all reason of logic the camp belonged to Shewz (if only because P99 camp rules are fucking RETARDED and need to be changed drastically...idk what server whoever came up with the current rules is from, but dear Christ please go back) and it was pretty stand up for him to just say he would leave after the next PH pop. Was pretty shitty of them to steal his kill, even if he was given the sword/

[Skope]

He zones in lguk and expects to keep the camp.

What? Learn to play your character, shortcuts can sometimes get you into trouble. This is one of those times.

[Agaron]

Enchanter needs to suck less and l2notzone IMO. This wouldn't happen if he/she/it did. Also, who gives a fuck about agreements, follow the rules and don't make up your own.

You're in Transcendence. You're joking right?

[Stickyfingers]

You're in Transcendence. You're joking right?

Is that supposed to be some sleight against me? I'm sorry, aren't you like a guildless level 43 Paladin anyways? I have sat with Enchanters before watching them take King, Lord, you name it, solo. I know for a fact you DO NOT need to zone/camp in order to take those camps, it definitely helps don't get me wrong, not necessary though.

[PhelanKA]

PVP would solve all of this.

[Combo]

So, I just want to write this little story down.

So:

1.) They cleared the camp and left it.
2.) You showed up to camp it.
3.) They come back and say it was their camp.
4.) You say they weren't there and thus it's yours, but you'll give it back after one spawn.
5.) They agree and give you your spawn.
6.) You are unable to kill the King and leave the camp.
7.) They return to see an uncamped King and kill it.

There's a double standard here. It's OK for YOU to take a camp if no one is there, but it's not OK for THEM to take the camp if no one is there.

It's irrelevant that you're an Enchanter and (felt like you) needed to zone to complete the encounter. You abandoned the camp. Indeed, you actually left the zone.

[Combo]

Oh, forgot the last step:

8.) You come on the forums to bitch and do so, even though if it had just been another placeholder and the events transpired as they did, you wouldn't have cared a single bit.

[2pair]

http://hollydoodledesigns.com/shop/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/inigo-montoya-2.jpg

[Dantes]

This thread still going?

In my opinion, my cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Agaron]

So:

1.) They cleared the camp and left it.
2.) You showed up to camp it.
3.) They come back and say it was their camp.
4.) You say they weren't there and thus it's yours, but you'll give it back after one spawn.
5.) They agree and give you your spawn.
6.) You are unable to kill the King and leave the camp.
7.) They return to see an uncamped King and kill it.

There's a double standard here. It's OK for YOU to take a camp if no one is there, but it's not OK for THEM to take the camp if no one is there.

It's irrelevant that you're an Enchanter and (felt like you) needed to zone to complete the encounter. You abandoned the camp. Indeed, you actually left the zone.

Did you even read the thread?

[Stepy]

"First group wiped, during which time they took WAY too long to regroup, enough time for Enchanter to clear the camp, with no one bothering to run down there to hold the camp while others were rezzed and such."

So what is enough time to regroup and get back to a camp to reclaim it? This is not live where you use throne AA, grab some plat fromm banker in lobby and grab a summoning stone and hit PoK to portal back to swamp and get back into Guk. Not everyone has what is necessary to get back down safely and hold the camp, ivis and ivu potions are not sold on every street corner. Even if someone was at zone waiting for others and they don't see a cc how are they to know a chanter will stroll in and take the camp. I guess you think every time you find a group spot you immediately bind close in case of wipe then all run down together needing ivis and ivu along the way for all.

[Agaron]

This thread still going?

In my opinion, my cat's breath smells like cat food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyufZ8NPeZk

[Agaron]

Is that supposed to be some sleight against me? I'm sorry, aren't you like a guildless level 43 Paladin anyways? I have sat with Enchanters before watching them take King, Lord, you name it, solo. I know for a fact you DO NOT need to zone/camp in order to take those camps, it definitely helps don't get me wrong, not necessary though.

It means your guild has bullied into my camps before, so you shouldn't preach.

[Eyry]

If you have to zone to kill anything, you dont deserve the camp...IMHO...

[Combo]

Did you even read the thread?

Yes, I read all twenty three... wait, twenty four pages of posts just to respond to the OP's story.

Wait, no.

[BeepBeep]

It means your guild has bullied into my camps before, so you shouldn't preach.

You're saying because of past actions by players he may not even know he's not entitled to give his opinion?

[PhelanKA]

Yes, I read all twenty three... wait, twenty four pages of posts just to respond to the OP's story.

Wait, no.

You are apparently neither masochistic or insane enough for Classic EQ.

THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT!

[Stickyfingers]

It means your guild has bullied into my camps before, so you shouldn't preach.

Sorry, didn't realize we were generalizing guilds here. I totally forgot the actions of some people from a guild I belong to totally represent my actions in game...my bad.

[darkblade717]

It means your guild has bullied into my camps before, so you shouldn't preach.

Does that make you a window licking cousin fucker because you were recently in Dutchmasters? Your logic, as always, is so flawed Stevie Wonder could see it.

[Stickyfingers]

Does that make you a window licking cousin fucker because you were recently in Dutchmasters? Your logic, as always, is so flawed Stevie Wonder could see it.

+1. Thank you sir =)

[HippoNipple]

I read a couple pages of this rant post and just wanted to give my opinion on it:

The enchanter had the right to take over the camp. The group took advantage of the rule in camping that he zoned so he lost the camp. If the enchanter would have known they were going to do this he would have stayed in the zone and tried to deal with the situation in another way instead of doing it the efficient way.

According to the rules the group didn't do anything wrong, but they are jackasses for doing it that way. The enchanter was just trying to take down the camp the most efficient way possible. Yes it breaks the camping rules, but the group should have had the decency to let that go.

The group broke a rule of camping that should have led to someone else taking over the camp. The enchanter broke a rule but most would look past it because it was so minor and a small technicality.

After the post was put up someone from the guild of the group probably disciplined them and forced them to give up the sword.

[Agaron]

Does that make you a window licking cousin fucker because you were recently in Dutchmasters? Your logic, as always, is so flawed Stevie Wonder could see it.

Your logic is skewed troll, because you have no f'n clue what I'm talking about obviously.

[Loke]

window licking

I think Richard D. James has something to contribute to this thread!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fmo1Sjn7dg)

[Agaron]

He's just butthurt cause he most likely got trained by Abacab. QQ

[astarothel]

Man, haven't heard aphex twin in so long. Loke, as always, delivers.

[Stepy]

"The enchanter had the right to take over the camp. The group took advantage of the rule in camping that he zoned so he lost the camp. If the enchanter would have known they were going to do this he would have stayed in the zone and tried to deal with the situation in another way instead of doing it the efficient way. "

It seems that no one is going to agree on who is right and who was wrong. Some side with the enchanter because they used a particular strat which required charming or attempting to charm a mob and zoning when it gets messy. Well i find two problems with this theory, not every named camp will be within immediate reach of a zone with a safe spot, which means this is a unique tactic for this camp. If the enchanter had the camp effectively broken there would be no reason for twice zoning while once again breaking the zone. It was clear that the enchanter was waiting for a full spawn before leaving so the group would have to re-breaking.
If a Chanter using this tactic was zoning/gating during the time a group did a CC or noticed that the camp was open then a enchanter comes along as says i was using some strat to break camp it is mine, i would think most would tell them nice try and get lost.

[Loke]

You know there is a quote feature, right?

Just throwing it out there. <3

[Agaron]

It seems that no one is going to agree on who is right and who was wrong.

So, expect to be stabbed in the back if you strike an honest deal with Divinity. And please, don't pull the,"a couple bad apples" line, because when 6 of your members all are fine with pulling this, chances are a big chunk of the guild is slimy.

Dude. Read. Pretty sure the OP doesn't give a damn about who's right or wrong, and this is all they're trying to convey.

[President]

President is just trying to vilify me take blame off of Dravyen, Slappie, Elisa, and Sernity. He's saying I'm "crying" on the forums, he's implying that I knew they were on a CR before I broke the camp, he's saying I'm acting out of pure greed, calling me a liar, a child, a dick, a failure as an enchanter, and the list goes on. I hope this is as obvious to everyone else as it is to me.

I wanted to delete this thread after Autum gave the sword back, but it's apparently not an option. Now I have to defend myself because President and others want to make me the bad guy.

But it's pointless. I can keep defending myself, nitpicking every event, assembling the evidence, but really President has his agenda and can paint any picture he wants with my words, without even having witnessed the incident.

I know now to just tell groups to get bent and leave me alone.

I have to say though, one thing really bothering me is this:
"The funny thing is this whole thread COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED had the enchanter not been a COMPLETE FAILURE and actually break the camp properly without resorting to "enchanter for dummies" guidebook."

If you look closely in the logs you'll see them taking the only bok knight from the camp. I watched that happen. That's why I had to use a kor shaman, that's why I had to zone to heal it. Sorry I'm not up to your standards.

Good night.


This is what you get for coming to R&F instead of going to an officer of the guild in question. Don't blame for coming to defend my guild because you were a dumb fuck and opened a can of worms on R&F.

[Stepy]

"You know there is a quote feature, right?"

Yes, i know but i like doing it the old fashion way.... cut and paste. :)

[President]

This is what you get for coming to R&F instead of going to an officer of the guild in question. Don't blame me for coming to defend my guild because you were a dumb fuck and opened a can of worms on R&F.

FIFM