Sebilis Crypt Camp

[dualentity]

Since some people tend not to know I'm going to post a reply I received from Derubael in regards to the camp. Since there have been times when players have been trying to solo claim one or two mobs with no intent of camping the entire "camp".

http://puu.sh/5DYUm.png

This post is just to clear up some issues as well as give people a place to point others to if there are future problems. Thus clearing up issues and not having to bring GM's into the situation and wasting their time that they could be using for other important business.

In the end just play nice and try to work things out with the other player.

[Itap]

+1 for UI

[Ele]

+1 for UI

+11ty billion

Edit: reminds me of this thread: April 2011 http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34964

[Purdee]

*thumbs up*

[Vandy]

So in other words you can just claim Hierophant and Baron and not the entire Crypt Camp if you are just doing the two, or just Hiero if that is all your are killing?

[Ravager]

If this is the precedent, there ought to be a sticky defining what EVERY camp in the game is.

I've never wanted to camp just one mob in crypt, but I never had a problem with anyone who has. It's muddy rules like these that contribute to the lawyering that goes on on this server.

BTW I am pretty jealous of that UI and want the same!

[dualentity]

So in other words you can just claim Hierophant and Baron and not the entire Crypt Camp if you are just doing the two, or just Hiero if that is all your are killing?

No. You have to claim the whole camp as a whole. Claiming 1-3 mobs is not viable. If a person is capable of holding down the entire camp solo, more power to them!

If this is the precedent, there ought to be a sticky defining what EVERY camp in the game is.

I've never wanted to camp just one mob in crypt, but I never had a problem with anyone who has. It's muddy rules like these that contribute to the lawyering that goes on on this server.

BTW I am pretty jealous of that UI and want the same!

Unfortunately it's a camp consisting of 4 named mobs, where most of the valuables lie in only two of the mobs, and not just a single named camp. Thanks! I'll be releasing an updated version of the UI as soon as I implement the original spellbook.

[Derubael]

If this is the precedent, there ought to be a sticky defining what EVERY camp in the game is.

There is no way we are going through every major camp in the game and define what each one is. That's crazy talk. My wish would be that everyone plays nice and works things out on their own. I know this doesn't always happen, but it's my hope that it will more often than not. For the most part, the staff recognizes the same camps the players do.

In the case of crypt, you could either rule each individual room as a camp, or all 4 rooms as one camp. It makes no sense to rule each individual room as a camp. That will cause FAR more 'rule lawyer' situations than making all four rooms one camp.


I've never wanted to camp just one mob in crypt, but I never had a problem with anyone who has.


Then you sound like an awesome guy :D We GREATLY encourage player made and enforced rules/decisions. If you want to let someone camp just 1 or 2 of those rooms, by all means do so!


Also, lets be honest here, the real attraction to this thread is dualentity's classic ui :)

[Vandy]

That makes no sense, If I want to go into the Baron room sit on his spawn and claim him as a camp. So if I am there first killing the Baron and a group wants to come down that means I automatically have to leave and they have precedent over me?

[Lazie]

No. You have to claim the whole camp as a whole. Claiming 1-3 mobs is not viable. If a person is capable of holding down the entire camp solo, more power to them!



Unfortunately it's a camp consisting of 4 named mobs, where most of the valuables lie in only two of the mobs, and not just a single named camp. Thanks! I'll be releasing an updated version of the UI as soon as I implement the original spellbook.



Actually I don't see that by Derubel's explanation. He says if you want to claim all of crypt you have to kill all 4. He never says you can't call "Heiro" if that is the only mob you are camping. Now I hope that is what he is saying. But by his wording it just looks like he is saying if you call crypt camp you have to kill all 4 or share it.

[dualentity]

Actually I don't see that by Derubel's explanation. He says if you want to claim all of crypt you have to kill all 4. He never says you can't call "Heiro" if that is the only mob you are camping. Now I hope that is what he is saying. But by his wording it just looks like he is saying if you call crypt camp you have to kill all 4 or share it.

Aye, I probably just worded what I said incorrectly. This is correct.

[Tikku82]

Most important question is: How you got that UI?

[Erati]

how do i acquire OPs UI?

[Derubael]

That makes no sense, If I want to go into the Baron room sit on his spawn and claim him as a camp. So if I am there first killing the Baron and a group wants to come down that means I automatically have to leave and they have precedent over me?

Or start killing all four mobs, yes. Or work something out with the group.

Like I said, ruling each room as an individual camp has FAR more headache and abuse potential then just calling the whole crypt one camp.

[dualentity]

Most important question is: How you got that UI?

how do i acquire OPs UI?

I'm the one developing it. I haven't released an updated version that is up to the point that mine is. There is a botched version on the forums under the technical discussion forum.

I'll be posting a new version once i finish the original spellbook.

[Reiker000]

I don't know what this thread is about, but I know not to group with anyone who uses that UI.

Edit: I really don't understand what this discussion is about, if some shaman is solo camping Hiero, you shouldn't be able to come in with a full group and claim Hiero just because you're capable of camping it. You can have the other 3 spawns, though. Likewise, if a group is at crypt killing the 4 spawns, you can't just sit in the Hiero room and claim it after them.

[dualentity]

I don't know what this thread is about, but I know not to group with anyone who uses that UI.

Only the most intense players can play well in 640x480 resolution, with 6 hotkeys and text based commands to replace disciplines!

[fullmetalcoxman]

Or start killing all four mobs, yes. Or work something out with the group.

Like I said, ruling each room as an individual camp has FAR more headache and abuse potential then just calling the whole crypt one camp.

Ridiculous.

[Vandy]

Or start killing all four mobs, yes. Or work something out with the group.

Like I said, ruling each room as an individual camp has FAR more headache and abuse potential then just calling the whole crypt one camp.

Glad it's so cut and dry, So what defines a camp? is it all NPCs within aggro range of where you would be camping? because you can stay in the room and kill 1 NPC without getting aggro of more?
Is it all NPCs within a 30 foot area?

If a camp is defined as an area that a person or group can clear, then whatever I can clear is my camp? I don't go into Crypt and farm a single boss but I don't understand how you can tell people they can't claim just 1 NPC as a camp if they can hold it. I know you want to encourage grouping but that is not everyone's game.

I agree that if someone is killing the entire Crypt area that one asshole SHOULDN'T be allowed to move in and then say on you were killing Emperor so you weren't here so I'm taking the Hiero as a camp.

But visa versa is just stupid if the person was there FIRST and a group comes in and just takes the spawn he has been killing well isn't this group doing the same thing that the Asshole in the first situation was doing to the group?

[Itap]

I'm the one developing it. I haven't released an updated version that is up to the point that mine is. There is a botched version on the forums under the technical discussion forum.

I'll be posting a new version once i finish the original spellbook.

Please do. Need this UI to enhance my immersion

[Reiker000]

Ridiculous.

Agreed. Saying that a group is able to claim a camp that someone is already camping just because they have more people is beyond ridiculous.

[baalzy]

I agree that if someone is killing the entire Crypt area that one asshole SHOULDN'T be allowed to move in and then say on you were killing Emperor so you weren't here so I'm taking the Hiero as a camp.



Heh, I remember Jeremy doing this back when Kunark first released and it causing a giant RnF storm.

I don't think it's unreasonable if the camp is completely empty except for 1 person camping 1 particular named for that person to be able to keep it if another group wants to roll in, but if a group is already there and demonstrates the ability to keep all rooms clear then they should have control of all those rooms if they choose to.

[baramur]

How can you justify telling someone what extra mobs they have to kill to lay claim to a camp. If a guy wants to sit and just kill Hieor or Baron, then he should be able to. Camp rules state that you must be able to engage the mob your camping and need no further assistance killing it. If a shaman can solo Hiero then he can camp him, simple as that. If he wants to just camp that one mob, what is wrong with that. By your logic a shaman cant camp tranix unless he decides to clear all the firegiants, so if i take a group to clear firegiants Tranix is mine, which would be ridiculous. This is exactly why camps are not defined, because you start implementing rules into how many mobs must be killed to lay claim to a camp, then you will run into more issues. Does camping 1 mob in crypt interrupt the other camps? NO Is it a exploit to just camp the 1 mob in his room? NO Does a group have the right to take that 1 mob because they are killing the other 3? Hell NO.

[Vandy]

How can you justify telling someone what extra mobs they have to kill to lay claim to a camp. If a guy wants to sit and just kill Hieor or Baron, then he should be able to. Camp rules state that you must be able to engage the mob your camping and need no further assistance killing it. If a shaman can solo Hiero then he can camp him, simple as that. If he wants to just camp that one mob, what is wrong with that. By your logic a shaman cant camp tranix unless he decides to clear all the firegiants, so if i take a group to clear firegiants Tranix is mine, which would be ridiculous. This is exactly why camps are not defined, because you start implementing rules into how many mobs must be killed to lay claim to a camp, then you will run into more issues. Does camping 1 mob in crypt interrupt the other camps? NO Is it a exploit to just camp the 1 mob in his room? NO Does a group have the right to take that 1 mob because they are killing the other 3? Hell NO.

Soloing isn't allowed here

[Ele]

Or start killing all four mobs, yes. Or work something out with the group.

Like I said, ruling each room as an individual camp has FAR more headache and abuse potential then just calling the whole crypt one camp.

I fear that this ruling will cause more undue headache, than it will alleviate. Does it apply exclusively to crypt? Examples: If someone is soloing/duoing the frenzied scarab room, and a group wants to take over disco, can they force the people camping just frenzied room out? If a team is duoing only Verix room, can a group of people wanting the whole basement force them out?

[baramur]

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.


I hate to break it to you, but as defined by the camp policies Each room in Crypt, IS INFACT, and CAN BE FORCED to be their own camps. Most on the server have always just seen crypt as a single camp, but by the very definitions of the policy, if someone was to sit in each room, they would lay claim to that mob. Thanks drive through.

[Vandy]

How about

RULE
these locations can only be considered a camp when there is no group killing a larger camp which they are a part of?

This would mean you could camp it if there is not a group doing their crypt rounds, but a group could not take it from you and you could not take it from an otherwise established group ?

[MaksimMazor]

Claiming Hiero room for the next couple days.

[Clark]

I don't know what this thread is about, but I know not to group with anyone who uses that UI.

Edit: I really don't understand what this discussion is about, if some shaman is solo camping Hiero, you shouldn't be able to come in with a full group and claim Hiero just because you're capable of camping it. You can have the other 3 spawns, though. Likewise, if a group is at crypt killing the 4 spawns, you can't just sit in the Hiero room and claim it after them.

^

[baramur]

How about these locations can only be considered a camp when there is no group killing a larger camp which they are a part of?

This would mean you could camp it if there is not a group doing their crypt rounds, but a group could not take it from you and you could not take it from an otherwise established group ?


This is the most logical thing i have seen regarding this camp, or other camps like it that extend to multiple rooms. So i am quite sure it will receive negative feedback.

[dualentity]

.

[Teppler]

I haven't read this whole thread but there was a ruling in HS North a month or two ago where the guide/GM said, after much deliberation, that you can't camp a whole wing and that you can only do specific rooms where you can keep presence right on the spawn. Camp checks being only a courtesy call.

Why wouldn't it be the same for the Crypt?

If this isn't the case then it was bad work by that guide that day who let a BDA group just storm in and take over under the ruling that you can't claim a wing like that(even tho everything is being killed) and I'd like to request a firm ruling on the subject.

[Coolname]

sounds pretty firm to me, if your not doing all 4 rooms you aren't doing crypt

[Teppler]

Make a ruling that's consistent with the Howling Stones North camp. If you're keeping the 3 named spawns down there, is a group allowed to come in and start killing named if you're not sitting right on them?

Last GM ruling said you can't claim a wing.

[Splorf22]

I don't think this is a good ruling.

First, anyone who can solo the Hierophant (probably a 60 enchanter or shaman) can kill any crypt named. Leaving them up and AFKing to do some work around the house is just a matter of convenience. So you are going to have groups coming in and trying to lawyer 'oh, so the other spawns are up' 'well I *can* kill them, I just can't be bothered' 'summoning GM' etc.

Second, the correct rule is (as Vandy stated) if a group is doing the crypt/emperor, its an asshat move to come in and take the hierophant room. If the shaman/enchanter is already killing 1-2 named, then there is no reason not to allow a group to kill the other stuff and inherit the camp after they leave.

[Orruar]

I haven't read this whole thread but there was a ruling in HS North a month or two ago where the guide/GM said, after much deliberation, that you can't camp a whole wing and that you can only do specific rooms where you can keep presence right on the spawn. Camp checks being only a courtesy call.

Why wouldn't it be the same for the Crypt?

If this isn't the case then it was bad work by that guide that day who let a BDA group just storm in and take over under the ruling that you can't claim a wing like that(even tho everything is being killed) and I'd like to request a firm ruling on the subject.

According to the server rules, the guide in your case ruled "correctly", while this Derubiel guy is just making shit up here. If you want to get technical on the rules, even a crypt group can lose a room if someone decides to walk in and sit in just one room and maintain presence there. I'm not saying the current server rules are right, but Derubiel is making a bad situation even worse. If this ruling stands, then they will need to end up defining every single camp in the game. GM defining specific camps is just plain retarded. I guess the other option is to come up with some arbitrary camp definition like "every mob within X distance or Y rooms of your group's stationary camping spot".

[quido]

The way crypt has been handled for years here is this:

If you are anywhere inside the crypt (not at emp) you reserve the right to lay claim to all 4 camps. This is an anomaly because you don't have to have someone at each of the spawns. This was an executive decision handed down by Rogean over two years ago. If you leave to goto emp, you relinquish you rights to the entire crypt, though most players won't get in the middle of it then.

You are within your rights to camp any portion of the crypt. This was also handed down by Rogean as an executive decision to Amelinda when Aerowyn <IB> started crying because I was only camping hiero and duke about two years ago. People are welcome to claim what is not already claimed by such a camper. For example, when I'm camping hiero and duke, I often invite groups to take Baron and Harbinger in addition to emp.

[Nastinate]

This is crazy talk, crypt is considered 4 different camps most people just respect the fact that a group can call and handle all 4. If someones down there soloing one spawn, then that is their mob.

[Alarti0001]

The way crypt has been handled for years here is this:

If you are anywhere inside the crypt (not at emp) you reserve the right to lay claim to all 4 camps. This is an anomaly because you don't have to have someone at each of the spawns. This was an executive decision handed down by Rogean over two years ago. If you leave to goto emp, you relinquish you rights to the entire crypt, though most players won't get in the middle of it then.

You are within your rights to camp any portion of the crypt. This was also handed down by Rogean as an executive decision to Amelinda when Aerowyn <IB> started crying because I was only camping hiero and duke about two years ago. People are welcome to claim what is not already claimed by such a camper. For example, when I'm camping hiero and duke, I often invite groups to take Baron and Harbinger in addition to emp.

[Coolname]

The way crypt has been handled for years here is this:

If you are anywhere inside the crypt (not at emp) you reserve the right to lay claim to all 4 camps. This is an anomaly because you don't have to have someone at each of the spawns. This was an executive decision handed down by Rogean over two years ago. If you leave to goto emp, you relinquish you rights to the entire crypt, though most players won't get in the middle of it then.

You are within your rights to camp any portion of the crypt. This was also handed down by Rogean as an executive decision to Amelinda when Aerowyn <IB> started crying because I was only camping hiero and duke about two years ago. People are welcome to claim what is not already claimed by such a camper. For example, when I'm camping hiero and duke, I often invite groups to take Baron and Harbinger in addition to emp.

must do all 4 as of today's ruling, I wouldn't mind that including IGS and roamer as well

[Barkingturtle]

Dumb ruling.

Someone intent on camping a single mob should not be forced to clear other mobs if they don't want them. Requiring someone to kill mobs against their will is pretty much slavery.

[Ele]

Dumb ruling.

Someone intent on camping a single mob should not be forced to clear other mobs if they don't want them. Requiring someone to kill mobs against their will is pretty much slavery.

http://wiki.project1999.com/images/Npc_a_froglok_slave.png

[Nirgon]

Also, lets be honest here, the real attraction to this thread is dualentity's classic ui :)

Find a way to make this shit mandatory like the spell file.

Also, you should be allowed to camp just the hiero.

This, to me, is like saying "If you want the Lord, you gotta camp the AM too".

At least you aren't also requiring the emperor. So, I'm not too fired up bros.

Grey areas like Necrosis Scarab + Guardian doe... that's commonly accepted as "camped" even if you aren't pulling the guardian spawn for some reason.

[quido]

Derubael is overriding 2 years of standing rules here with that because he didn't know. Now that someone is telling him, I think it would be silly to make today's change stand.

It would be retarded to think that someone could goto an empty crypt, clear just hiero and duke for 5 hours, and then a group could show up and say "no this isn't yours anymore." Crypt has been handled as an anomaly for two years now; I don't know why it would change now except by accident.

1. You can claim all 4 rooms of the crypt and the roaming named without having to have someone on each spawn.

2. You can claim any portion of the crypt, leaving the rest to whoever wants it, if you arrive at it entirely unclaimed.

Pretty easy.

[Nirgon]

I knew you'd turn up in here you curly headed fuck!

[Orruar]

Derubael is overriding 2 years of standing rules here with that because he didn't know. Now that someone is telling him, I think it would be silly to make today's change stand.

Yeah, pretty sure this shit is gonna be overridden by the boss. It was a rookie mistake, but all will be forgiven. At least he wasn't using powers to try to ban people who were fighting his alt for seafuries (hi Cyrius!)

[dualentity]

Find a way to make this shit mandatory like the spell file

Haha, I wish that would happen if I can get it finished. Would be absolutely beautiful.

[quido]

Yeah honest mistake from Derubael - hopefully we can avoid too much confusion here.

[Derubael]

Here's the issue.

You can either call the "Crypt" (notice that players call it the 'Crypt Camp', not the heiro camp or the duke camp) one camp comprised of those four mobs, in which case you would need to demonstrate your ability to hold all four spawns at the same time. Or you can call it four separate camps, which may seem like a good idea at first, but let me give you an example of something I have seen happen on multiple occasions (and been called in to mediate this nightmare fuck of a situation):

PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, PlayerA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".

Keep in mind that the common sense way to deal with this is to say "stop being dumb and let them clear the other three rooms", but there are so many rule lawyers on this server, and everyone wants to call foul when a guide/gm comes in and doesn't follow the rules laid out in the forums. The last thing our Guides need is more headaches.

That being said, if we were to make a new rule allowing the splitting of camps prior to another group and/or person coming in to claim the other portions of the camp, how do we define that? Can you just clear ONE spawn, or are you allowed to hold multiple if you were holding them before? Does this apply to ALL camps, or just certain camps? For example, if I'm sitting at the Mistmoore pond killing just one of the little two spawns in the corner, and a full group comes in and wants to kill those mobs, can I sit there and continue to kill those two mobs while they clear everything else? What happens if in the process of killing those two mobs I aggro other nearby mobs from the camp the other group is clearing around me? Am I allowed to kill those mobs to defend myself, or do I need to leave them for the group and let them kill me because I'm standing in the middle of a camp killing two mobs while the group kills the rest?

If it DOESNT apply to all 'camps' how do we define which camps it DOES apply to?

You guys see how complicated this is now? Help me out, I'm legitimately asking the community for input here.

This thread from this point forward will be heavily moderated. Intelligent discussion only please. Troll posts or posts that don't add anything to the discussion WILL be deleted. Thanks :)

[Sirken]

This thread from this point forward will be heavily moderated. Intelligent discussion only please. Troll posts or posts that don't add anything to the discussion WILL be deleted. Thanks :)

This^ x2

[Derubael]

Why would you say something like this? Sounds to me like it's saying "if you say something we don't like, we'll delete it." Solid way to encourage feedback.

Because of stupid posts like this shitting up the discussion. Deleted.

[Wrench]

what jeremy is saying makes sense to me

[quido]

I'm not sure why my last post was deleted.

I think a decent parallel would be the King/Tactician camp in Guk. The way I see it, Crypt like King/Tact is a single camp. But are we absolutely required to clear the whole thing to lay claim to part of it? Imo, no. It's relatively easy to solo just the Froglok King and one roamer or just the Tactician and leave the rest up. Does this mean that someone couldn't come along and start killing the rest of it? It shouldn't, but it also shouldn't mean that the person killing the Froglok King should be forced to give it up just because he chooses not to bother with the rest.

I think it goes without dispute that the Crypt (4 room nameds + roamer named) is a single camp. The question here is whether people are or aren't able to claim a portion of a "camp." I don't see why the anomaly allowing people to claim 5 nameds without having to have a presence at each spawn wouldn't apply to someone only wanting to take one or two of those nameds, especially when they were there first without contest.

[Orruar]

Here's the issue.

You can either call the "Crypt" (notice that players call it the 'Crypt Camp', not the heiro camp or the duke camp) one camp comprised of those four mobs, in which case you would need to demonstrate your ability to hold all four spawns at the same time. Or you can call it four separate camps, which may seem like a good idea at first, but let me give you an example of something I have seen happen on multiple occasions (and been called in to mediate this nightmare fuck of a situation):


Obviously you could also just call it some subset of the 4. Apparently they put a special rule in place for this camp that you can claim all 4 rooms without maintaining physical presence in all 4 simultaneously. It was a special rule to get around an already pretty dumb rule, but it's there. So is it not obvious that the solution here is to allow a person to camp 1 or 2 or 3 of those rooms and if someone else wants to move in, they can take whatever the first person isn't clearing? Is this really a difficult idea to grapple with?


PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, assholeA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".


See above. Crypt is special. So groupB moving in can't just pull the lawyer card and claim duke. They can take whatever playerA is not camping. And once they have established the rest of the crypt camp, by clearing the mobs playerA was not clearing, playerA has no right to contest the mobs they were not previously camping. This isn't rocket surgery.

And I like how it went from playerA to assholeA. Your bias in this situation is showing. You clearly felt you have been wronged in this situation before and now are trying to punish people who don't play as you would like them to.


Keep in mind that the common sense way to deal with this is to say "stop being dumb and let them clear the other three rooms", but there are so many rule lawyers on this server, and everyone wants to call foul when a guide/gm comes in and doesn't follow the rules laid out in the forums. The last thing our Guides need is more headaches.


Yes, I suspect that people would be upset when rules are laid out in the forums and a guide doesn't follow them. I also suspect people would be upset when a police officer showed up to their house and didn't follow the laws written down in the books. I don't even understand your point here. You aren't going to make everyone happy. So why not just follow the rules that are already in place instead of creating some new rule for this situation?


That being said, if we were to make a new rule allowing the splitting of camps prior to another group and/or person coming in to claim the other portions of the camp, how do we define that? Can you just clear ONE spawn, or are you allowed to hold multiple if you were holding them before? Does this apply to ALL camps, or just certain camps? For example, if I'm sitting at the Mistmoore pond killing just one of the little two spawns in the corner, and a full group comes in and wants to kill those mobs, can I sit there and continue to kill those two mobs while they clear everything else? What happens if in the process of killing those two mobs I aggro other nearby mobs from the camp the other group is clearing around me? Am I allowed to kill those mobs to defend myself, or do I need to leave them for the group and let them kill me because I'm standing in the middle of a camp killing two mobs while the group kills the rest?

Very simple. Whatever a person was clearing prior to a group moving is considered their camp. We don't have any pre-defined camps anyway. If a person wants to clear just the mobs inside the efreeti room and leave the rest of the trash up, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If another group comes in and starts doing the efreeti trash for xp, why shouldn't they both be happy in this situation? And if the person camping efreeti accidentally agros one of the mobs that belongs to the group, they can take it over to the group and offer it to them. Is it really that hard to apply common sense to this situation?


If it DOESNT apply to all 'camps' how do we define which camps it DOES apply to?

You guys see how complicated this is now? Help me out, I'm legitimately asking the community for input here.

Well apparently this special rule about camps only applies to the crypt. It would be nice if we just defined all camps as being "whatever the person/group is clearing, regardless of how many rooms they are clearing", but we don't have that. So instead we have this crazy "sit in a room to claim the spawns within, except for crypt" thing. It's not perfect, but what you're trying to do with crypt only pushes things the opposite direction from where they should go. If you get to decide what constitutes a full camp and require people to clear the full camp to get any part of it, you're only increasing the amount of GM intervention necessary. Do you understand this point?

[Teppler]

According to the server rules, the guide in your case ruled "correctly", while this Derubiel guy is just making shit up here. If you want to get technical on the rules, even a crypt group can lose a room if someone decides to walk in and sit in just one room and maintain presence there. I'm not saying the current server rules are right, but Derubiel is making a bad situation even worse. If this ruling stands, then they will need to end up defining every single camp in the game. GM defining specific camps is just plain retarded. I guess the other option is to come up with some arbitrary camp definition like "every mob within X distance or Y rooms of your group's stationary camping spot".

It sounds like keeping a presence right on the spawn point is the only consistent way to do this.

I don't really see what makes the Crypt different from HS North where the Crypt gets special rules. Ruling for one should be the same ruling for the other.

[Coolname]

simple add a rule you can't claim anything as a solo player, problem solved.

That would certainly help open up frenzy for "real" groups

[Derubael]

I'm not sure why my last post was deleted.

I think a decent parallel would be the King/Tactician camp in Guk. The way I see it, Crypt like King/Tact is a single camp. But are we absolutely required to clear the whole thing to lay claim to part of it? Imo, no. It's relatively easy to solo just the Froglok King and one roamer or just the Tactician and leave the rest up. Does this mean that someone couldn't come along and start killing the rest of it? It shouldn't, but it also shouldn't mean that the person killing the Froglok King should be forced to give it up just because he chooses not to bother with the rest.

Agreed, and you shouldn't have to kill all the extra spawns to hold claim to the camp as long as you're killing the main attraction (in your example, the king and the tactician, or in the crypt example, the four named spawns) and keeping them clear.

I think it goes without dispute that the Crypt (4 room nameds + roamer named) is a single camp. The question here is whether people are or aren't able to claim a portion of a "camp."

Which camps can you only claim a portion of? When does this apply? Does it apply to straight XP camps as well as high value item camps? As it's defined currently in the rules we have posted (which, i should add, we can mediate at our discretion, but i'd rather have something clearly defined that the players can follow, rather than being called in every 5 minutes to mediate camp disputes), this kind of thing isn't allowed because the crypt is 1 camp and you must demonstrate and exercise your ability to hold the camp in order to claim it.

[Splorf22]

PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, assholeA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".

I really don't see why PlayerA is the asshole here. GroupB wants it both ways: they want to be able to claim the duke because its a separate camp, but they want to be able to claim the entire crypt because its one camp.

[Spitty]

This is favoritism.

You're favoring people and organizations that can essentially "rule-lawyer" a camper out of their camp. All the need to do is call in a couple people to make it look like the other spawns are being cleared, and I'm GM-booted out of a camp I have solid claim over.

If I, as a solo shaman, am sitting in a room on this server with the door closed and a single 23-minute spawn and I'm legitimately and successfully clearing that spawn every time it re-pops, I should be able to expect that I can maintain ownership of that camp. This is, and has been, a guaranteed scenario on this server many times over in many different situations.

You cannot enact a ruling that allows someone to override that by sheer numbers, and you cannot do that to a specific camp. You're making it a requirement now that a crypt camper be part of a guild or have a batphone-like ability to call in reinforcements to protect a completely legitimate camp.

That's absolutely wrong.

It doesn't matter if you're afraid of "rule lawyers". It doesn't matter that you think there's going to be more service instances where you need to show up. I can guarantee 100% that you'll see more instances and more intense situations if you try enforcing your ruling.

Guaranteed.

[Orruar]

It sounds like keeping a presence right on the spawn point is the only consistent way to do this.

I don't really see what makes the Crypt different from HS North where the Crypt gets special rules. Ruling for one should be the same ruling for the other.

Personally, I'd prefer if we had a "you clear it, it's yours" rule. The "one room" rule is in fact counterproductive when it comes to encouraging grouping. When you limit the amount of mobs any group can keep as part of their camp, you only encourage smaller group sizes. If you take a full group to lguk and can clear most of dead side, you may just end up losing 2/3 of your camp to rules lawyers. So why not just solo/duo a camp instead.

They put the special crypt rule in because it exposed the complete absurdity of the "one room" rule. It was really just a bandaid.

[Millburn]

Is this really so difficult to mediate?

Just do it like this.

Crypt is a 4 slot camp, any individual or group can claim any part(s) of the 4 slot camp that they demonstrate as having the ability to clear and maintain and is not presently claimed by another individual or group. BAM done.

[quido]

Yes Teppler, it's an anomaly. I tried to be a jerk years ago and claim Hiero while a group was elsewhere in the crypt, per the standard rules. The higher-ups (Rogean and Uthgaard) agreed that Crypt would be treated as a single camp (and emp another camp) and that you didn't have to maintain a presence at each named spawn to claim it. However, if you left the crypt to goto emp, you possibly relinquish your rights to the crypt.

One time I was killing Hiero and Duke and the group that was at Chef (containing Calabee) wiped and asked for my help with a CR since they knew I had a rogue parked at the door. While I was still dragging their last 2 corpses, a few of them decided to be jackasses and bumrushed the crypt and claimed it (it was easier to get down there then). I logged back on my shaman, waited for them to leave to goto emp, and reclaimed Hiero and Duke. Well they came back, didn't agree with my claim, and KSed a non-cloak Hiero named from me. I petitioned, and didn't get a response, so I trained the fuck out of the group 10 minutes later. Well it turns out Ambrotos was there watching and was about the hand my two named back to me, but he decided not to because of the train lol.

[Orruar]

Which camps can you only claim a portion of? When does this apply? Does it apply to straight XP camps as well as high value item camps? As it's defined currently in the rules we have posted (which, i should add, we can mediate at our discretion, but i'd rather have something clearly defined that the players can follow, rather than being called in every 5 minutes to mediate camp disputes), this kind of thing isn't allowed because the crypt is 1 camp and you must demonstrate and exercise your ability to hold the camp in order to claim it.

Maybe you're new here, but no matter what the rules are, you're going to be called in every 5 minutes. And changing the rules suddenly, as you have just done, is only going to encourage the rules lawyers to call you up in the future

[loramin]

Can i just beg the GMs to not ignore the community? This forum community can't agree on anything, but everyone here seems to agree that it's incredibly lame for a soloer who is camping a mob to have that mob stolen by a group that comes along just because the group is bigger. The idea of that seems to directly contradict the spirit of P99, and I think that's why the community is reacting so strongly. This forum rarely has a consensus on anything, so when it does I think that's significant.

When it seems (like it does in this case) that its Derubai vs. everyone, then perhaps Derubai is not doing a good job of explaining why the old way of doing things was so problematic for the GMs. I completely understand that Derubai, and the GMs in general, have concerns the rest of us don't (they have to deal with the fallout of these decisions), but I think for them to completely ignore such unified opposition to this ruling is a mistake.

Please don't delete my post ;)

[Derubael]

And I like how it went from playerA to assholeA. Your bias in this situation is showing. You clearly felt you have been wronged in this situation before and now are trying to punish people who don't play as you would like them to.
Keep your irrelevant commentary out of this discussion, thanks.

Yes, I suspect that people would be upset when rules are laid out in the forums and a guide doesn't follow them. I also suspect people would be upset when a police officer showed up to their house and didn't follow the laws written down in the books. I don't even understand your point here. You aren't going to make everyone happy. So why not just follow the rules that are already in place instead of creating some new rule for this situation?
You mean like this one:
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.

Hmm. Seems to be a clearly defined rule posted in the Camp, defined thread.



Very simple. Whatever a person was clearing prior to a group moving is considered their camp. We don't have any pre-defined camps anyway. If a person wants to clear just the mobs inside the efreeti room and leave the rest of the trash up, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If another group comes in and starts doing the efreeti trash for xp, why shouldn't they both be happy in this situation? And if the person camping efreeti accidentally agros one of the mobs that belongs to the group, they can take it over to the group and offer it to them. Is it really that hard to apply common sense to this situation?

So if I'm a solo player killing a couple mobs in the GY in Mistmoore and a full group comes in to XP there, that full group has to work around the one player killing 2 mobs in that camp? What if he's killing 4 mobs, but can't clear any of the rest in time? That GY group of 6 basically has to move on to a different camp (which may or may not be available in that zone) because 1 guy is screwing that camp for the 6 people trying to XP there. "its all so simple" but you clearly don't see the problem with your reasoning, or why it's important to clearly define things.


Do you understand this point?

Do you understand mine?

[fadetree]

To the staff :

How many routinely contested camps are there? 50 or so, tops? Why don't you just rigidly define and name each camp in terms of exactly what it comprises, and lay down exact rules for each camp or portion thereof? Then publish it in a document and then tell everybody to stfu and follow the document. If they don't like the camp definitions or the rules, they can go run their own server.

It will be a pain to get it written up, but I bet you would win big over time by not having to deal with everybody's opinions as to what a camp is and whats allowed.

[Spitty]

Derubael, you're best served by not turning this into quote-fest and spending some time thinking about your position here.

Imaginary scenarios, as fun as they are to use for strengthening your argument, are nowhere near the idiocy that I've witnessed or been subject to at this particular camp and never petitioned.

[skipdog]

Dumb ruling.

Someone intent on camping a single mob should not be forced to clear other mobs if they don't want them. Requiring someone to kill mobs against their will is pretty much slavery.

[Coolname]

To the staff :

How many routinely contested camps are there? 50 or so, tops? Why don't you just rigidly define and name each camp in terms of exactly what it comprises, and lay down exact rules for each camp or portion thereof? Then publish it in a document and then tell everybody to stfu and follow the document. If they don't like the camp definitions or the rules, they can go run their own server.

It will be a pain to get it written up, but I bet you would win big over time by not having to deal with everybody's opinions as to what a camp is and whats allowed.


This^^

[Nastinate]

As Ive always understood it here and on live one person and or group can only lay claim to one named, set camps with more than one named were regulated by the players. Ive had groups on live and here on p1999 muscle into crypt while we have been clearing all the mobs, all you can do is just turtle into the heiro or duke room and wait em out, its classic. I honestly do not understand the problem as a gm if u receive a petition from a couple groups in crypt fighting over spawn's You just ask which one they are camping group a says heiro group b says duke, everything else is uncamped and up for grabs, problem solved. Personally ive always respected anyone be it solo or a group's right to camp the entire crypt so long as they can keep it all down within spawn time.

[quido]

Which camps can you only claim a portion of? When does this apply? Does it apply to straight XP camps as well as high value item camps? As it's defined currently in the rules we have posted (which, i should add, we can mediate at our discretion, but i'd rather have something clearly defined that the players can follow, rather than being called in every 5 minutes to mediate camp disputes), this kind of thing isn't allowed because the crypt is 1 camp and you must demonstrate and exercise your ability to hold the camp in order to claim it.

I think you can claim a portion of any camp where the spawns necessarily don't all come at once. Ask me about any specific scenario and I can probably explain it to you.

Let's consider a pain-in-the-ass "camp" like dog captain in KC. If I'm sitting up in the tower killing say 6 of the dogs, getting some exp hoping to score a jade mace, is someone allowed to come and say "this whole thing is mine now because you're not clearing it all." Hell no - that is absurd. We have always respected a player's right to claim whatever they can clear as long as it didn't extend to multiple "camps."

[Derubael]

I really don't see why PlayerA is the asshole here. GroupB wants it both ways: they want to be able to claim the duke because its a separate camp, but they want to be able to claim the entire crypt because its one camp.

I changed the wording in the original post. PlayerA isn't an asshole because he wants to solo camp a mob - that's all good. In my example I changed his name to AssholeA because he was then lawyering the camp rules to limit a group of 6 to one room, and thus likely make them leave (because what group of 6 wants to camp 1 mob for hours on end unless its something big) and reclaim both rooms when the group left (a dick move and srs rule lawyering, which i hate)

[quido]

Also I don't know why 2 years of precedent is now going out the window. We had a good understanding here - sometimes people weren't aware of how it was handled, but they were quickly informed and all was well.

I hope you can do the right thing and not arbitrarily change the rules 2 years later. One way or another, the rules regarding claiming Crypt are going to be an anomaly.

[Teppler]

Personally, I'd prefer if we had a "you clear it, it's yours" rule. The "one room" rule is in fact counterproductive when it comes to encouraging grouping. When you limit the amount of mobs any group can keep as part of their camp, you only encourage smaller group sizes. If you take a full group to lguk and can clear most of dead side, you may just end up losing 2/3 of your camp to rules lawyers. So why not just solo/duo a camp instead.

They put the special crypt rule in because it exposed the complete absurdity of the "one room" rule. It was really just a bandaid.

Is there a mandate to cater this game to groupers? Is there a mandate to encourage full groups rather than duos or trios? IMO a soloer or duo or trio should be looked at as having the same rights as a full group.

That being said, I prefer to respect when someone says they are holding down an area such as HS North. I'm just really confused because not to long ago a GM ruled you absolutely can lose 2/3 of your camp if you are soloing HS down and another group comes in and puts people at 2/3 of the camps you can't be at 100% of the time cause you're soloing and can only be at one spot at once. I was really annoyed at the ruling at the time but it seems to be the only consistent way to do things.... Letting CC's being a courtesy call and strickly having to be on the spawn point if someone wants to be a dick about the camps(and they have a right to be).

IDK I can go either way on this but I need to see a solid argument for holding camps without a physical presence right on those camps.

[Derubael]

To the staff :

How many routinely contested camps are there? 50 or so, tops? Why don't you just rigidly define and name each camp in terms of exactly what it comprises, and lay down exact rules for each camp or portion thereof? Then publish it in a document and then tell everybody to stfu and follow the document. If they don't like the camp definitions or the rules, they can go run their own server.

It will be a pain to get it written up, but I bet you would win big over time by not having to deal with everybody's opinions as to what a camp is and whats allowed.

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.


Derubael, you're best served by not turning this into quote-fest and spending some time thinking about your position here.

Imaginary scenarios, as fun as they are to use for strengthening your argument, are nowhere near the idiocy that I've witnessed or been subject to at this particular camp and never petitioned.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.

IMO a 'lets all play nice' ruleset is best, it just doesn't work that way in practice.

My apologies if my position wasn't clear - I don't have a horse in this race, except as it applies to making sure everyone has a good time, and our guides don't lose their minds trying to mediate camp disputes. Furthermore, I'd like to make a clearly defined ruleset that can be easily read and understood by the majority of players, and that our guides can point to in disputes and say "these are the rules"


I hope you can do the right thing and not arbitrarily change the rules 2 years later. One way or another, the rules regarding claiming Crypt are going to be an anomaly.

Again, I'm not against this, and I apologize if I made it sound that way. I ruled this camp today (and have been ruling this camp this way) because thats what the camp rules are. I'm not the only staff member who was doing it like this. and this discussion is no longer about whether I made the 'right' or 'wrong' call based on previous precedent.

[quido]

I would also like you staffers to acknowledge that there WAS an executive decision regarding both the crypt being one camp, and people being able to claim a portion of it. I am not just making this up. The Crypt is an anomaly and has been handled as such for over two years.

You've had a handful of people tell you this - nobody has really disputed this being the case (though they might dislike it). It would be nice if you could just agree to keep it like it was. I can lay out the rules in clear English for you if you would like to have something official.

[fadetree]

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can agree on and understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.


Well, thats fine, but you will get to continue to adjudicate 'camps' based on varying opinions. I'm not a guide or a member of the staff, make me one and I will write it.

My real point is that there IS no possible 'clearly defined ruleset that everyone can agree on' that will solve this problem. No amount of discussion will change that fact.

[Freakish]

I'm very curious about King Tranix. This is such a silly camp, its an 8 hour respawn and nobody in their right mind is going to stay there for 8 hours until he spawns time and again.

Is this actually a camp? Is it a FTE raid scenario? Do you have to clear the giants that you don't want to kill to get your Tranix down?

[Nirgon]

Classic rules do state that a GM has the final say on any camp decision, whether or not things were decided previously one way or another before.

You are also open as both parties in the area to work things out with the GM.

What the GM says is final.

So there's really no "right" and "wrong" you just gotta work things out with Deru by the classic handbook.

I think Jeremy's point is the right one given previous precedent, and maybe Deru can say "I will handle it this way in the future" (I hope).

However, nothing he decides to resolve a camp dispute at any point is wrong.

People are free to make decisions and complain, and based on his decision (how people are acting, how long certain people have been there) are up to him.

Welcome to governing a sand box MMO imo.

[Splorf22]

I changed the wording in the original post. PlayerA isn't an asshole because he wants to solo camp a mob - that's all good. In my example I changed his name to AssholeA because he was then lawyering the camp rules to limit a group of 6 to one room, and thus likely make them leave (because what group of 6 wants to camp 1 mob for hours on end unless its something big) and reclaim both rooms when the group left (a dick move and srs rule lawyering, which i hate)

Bend your ears, ladies and gentlemen, as I tell you the story of poor misunderstood player A. PlayerA is looking to buy ElitePixelX in EC because he doesn't feel like participating in the batphoning/poopsocking/rl smearing clusterfuck known as the P1999 raid scene. So he gets up early on a day when he has time and can study or whatnot from home, logs on his 60 shaman, and heads to the crypt. He kills the hiero PH, invises over to the duke, kills that PH, and goes AFK in the Hierophant's room to do homework/chores/etc. All is well.

After a few hours, he comes back and there is a group in the Duke's room. They probably called CC and he was AFK, so they showed up and found him there. Certain in the righteousness of their superior numbers, they threw the rulebook at him and said that he could only maintain a spawn if he was sitting on it. PlayerA is mildly annoyed by the temerity of these terrible players who need 6 people to kill a L55 mob, but rules are rules so he hangs out in the Hierophant's room. He's done with his homework now and he sees the Baron up so he tags him and begins the slaughter. GroupB promptly shows up with the rules lawyers again and says they have claim to it, even though they were not in that room, and that is precisely why they justified taking the duke.

OK, I had fun writing that. But the real point is Derubael, can you not see the raging inconsistency of your position? GroupB gets to claim the duke because PlayerA isn't in the Duke's room; PlayerA doesn't get to claim the Baron because GroupB isn't on the Baron's spawn point. The obvious (and symmetrical) ruling here is that PlayerA gets the hiero, GroupB gets the duke, and everything else is FFA. Instead you are basically playing populist and saying that whoever shows up with more people gets the camp. There is some logic to that, but that's a very dangerous path to tread. Imagine when that's applied to the raid scene :)

[Spitty]

I understand that you're not taking sides, Derubael, but your ruling exhibits favoritism. Whether intended or not, that's the reality of how this is going to play out.

Anyone that can demonstrate that they could clear the entire camp is going to be favored.

I'll submit just one example - I'm clearing duke, a solo player shows up and wants duke too and calls his buddies in. They proceed to clear the other 3 PHs, petition, I'm booted and then that solo player moves into duke and proceeds to do exactly what I was just doing, except with GM enforcement.

Best case, I leave camp and am extremely annoyed. Worst case, I monitor the situation, re-petition and now you're an hour into a service situation that could have been alleviated by simply enforcing the precedent that I was clearing a camp and am thus entitled to maintain that to the best of my ability.

What Jeremy and Nastinate have said is the best-case scenario, from my rather experienced perspective; there's an uneasy truce at crypt, but most people work things out on the spot.

It's not ideal if a group comes down and finds one person that's clearing duke, but they're demonstrating that they can legitimately and successfully clear that spawn and should be left alone. That has been, and ideally should be, the established precedent here.

To rule otherwise - besides the implied immorality of forcing people to stop doing what's within their means on this server - is going to have some immediate, unpleasant and far-reaching consequences.

[baalzy]

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.


Lets crowd source one then.

To begin lets list the highly 'contested' camps by zone and what rules to apply

Sebilis:
The Crypt this includes the 4 named in little rooms and the wandering named.
1) If the camp is completely unclaimed then any person(s) who enter may choose to take whichever room(s) they're capable of holding.
2) If the camp is partially claimed and another group wishes to be present, the original occupant(s) retain rights to the camps which they were already capable of clearing
3) If a group is capable of holding all 4 rooms plus the wanderer and was the first to arrive at an uncontested camp then no other player(s) may claim any portion of this camp.
4) If the original group is fully clearing the Crypt and also making pulls from the nearby emperor camp and a new group arrives, the original must choose which camp they wish to retain. Either the crypt or the emp.




I am mostly a solo'er and will freely admit I'm not really knowledgeable on all of the camps but I'll gladly compile a list from peoples replies and put it into another thread later to flesh out/discuss.

[fadetree]

Lets crowd source one then.



You can't crowd source it, it will dissolve into endless arguments. Again, there is no possibility of a 'clearly stated ruleset that everyone can agree on'. There isn't even one that 'most people would agree on'. The staff needs to do it using their own opinions, and then tell everybody to stfu.

[Nirgon]

They probably called CC and he was AFK, so they showed up and found him there.

As long as he is rather promptly pulling the mobs (aka not 5minutes in between it spawning), its his imo.

If he's not holding down all 4? Well, hopefully he's at least holding down the hiero (killed within a small window of it spawning). The one's he's having trouble with and getting every 5th pass or not holding down? He can try to be a dick here, it should be obvious from observation what's going on by a GM and he will be remembered as a jerk by the GM reporting and also lose whatever he isn't holding down when the GM comes to resolve the dispute. Probably with a mention that he needs to stop being a dick.

[Ele]

"Camp" boundaries should not be defined via server rules. They are fluid and should only be determined by the player base 1) as a reference point to the general area being cleared, 2) by day to day interactions of what is reasonably maintained, 3) the named/ph being claimed.

As an anecdote on live, KC/Seb supported upwards of 100 people during prime time, here it is overcrowded with 30-36. LGuk would have upwards of 120, SolB up to 90. People had to split up the commonly referenced "camps" as known here on P99 into even smaller subdivisions to be able to support that many people. Groups were sometimes limited to a camp of 3-6 mobs, which would drive people here insane. We some how managed to survive classic.

If people want to play the be-an-asshole game and start squeezing people out of camps and rules lawyering, let them be named and shamed by the general populace. Institute a no-asshole policy and start suspending and banning people causing problems, when people start losing their pixels, the rest will figure out how to handle disputes like civilized people.

[Derubael]

Spitty - ty, your post was well thought out and informative.

SAKURAGI (cause you'll never be splorf or loraen to me) - i understand where you are coming from, and i think the current rules as they are laid out in the "camps, defined" thread are so unbelievably easy to abuse that i kind of hate the fact that they are there at all. That's why, as Nirgon stated, we're allowed to make our own calls at our own discretion based on the situation. I cannot tell you how many times i've had people try to bullshit lawyer me into making a silly decision based on that thread.

In case you guys didn't notice, I'm trying to get input on how situations like crypt should be handled moving forward, and what the best way to clearly define that is to the community. In the end, we still have the final call when we're petitioned to come into a dispute, but I wanted input from you guys on how to make those situations more clear so you DONT have to call ina GM.

Also, and you can quote me on this because we were just talking about it, in order to camp King Tranix you have to keep the fire giants cleared. You can't just FD a monk on top of tranix till he pops and call it 'camped'.

Going to take a few more opinions from you guys on this and then lock the thread.

Again - if you were to create a rule on the seb crypt, how would you word it, where would it apply (IE, just the crypt, or other camps as well?) and when?

thx guys :D

[fadetree]

"Camp" boundaries should not be defined via server rules. They are fluid and should only be determined by the player base 1) as a reference point to the general area being cleared, 2) by day to day interactions of what is reasonably maintained, 3) the named/ph being claimed.

As an anecdote on live, KC/Seb supported upwards of 100 people during prime time, here it is overcrowded with 30-36. LGuk would have upwards of 120, SolB up to 90. People had to split up the commonly referenced "camps" as known here on P99 into even smaller subdivisions to be able to support that many people. Groups were sometimes limited to a camp of 3-6 mobs, which would drive people here insane. We some how managed to survive classic.

If people want to play the be-an-asshole game and start squeezing people out of camps and rules lawyering, let them be named and shamed by the general populace. Institute a no-asshole policy and start suspending and banning people causing problems, when people start losing their pixels, the rest will figure out how to handle disputes like civilized people.

I understand, but you are talking about what 'should' be. That's nice, but it is not the same as what actually is, namely assholes and lawyering galore.

[CodyF86]

I have to be honest I had to read through this thread 4 times to make sure
I half-way understood what the actual issue was then I reread it a 5th
time when I realized that I was agreeing with Jeremy... :)

If you are sitting on a mobs spawn point then you are camping it. Whenever I
have done the crypt, if there was someone in there killing the hiero then we
killed everything else until they were done.

This thread is going to cause the staff more headaches than the actual
crypt.

Aaradin
The A-Team

[Thulack]

Personally my view on any camp that doesnt require a raid mob to kill is if a person is clearing the camp it is their's. If a person if killing 1 mob in a camp then that mob is theres and the rest are FFA. But that person has to be there first for them to decide how they want to do it. If 1 person camping hiero then the next person or group to come along can take duke or duke/others but they cant force the person out of hiero because they were there first.

[Barkingturtle]

If I'm hunting the Warden in Upper Guk, do I need to clear those two jerk-frogs on the platform?

Seriously, in the four years I've played on this server, I've always assumed the only safe way to claim a mob was to sit on its spawn and engage it the instant it pops. Now I need to make friends, too?

Asking way too much, imo.

[Millburn]

Crypt is a 4 slot camp, any individual or group can claim any part(s) of the 4 slot camp that they demonstrate as having the ability to clear and maintain and is not presently claimed by another individual or group.

All grey areas outside of this framework should be common sense and subject to play nice rules.

That's my proposal

[Splorf22]

Again - if you were to create a rule on the seb crypt, how would you word it, where would it apply (IE, just the crypt, or other camps as well?) and when?

I'm no rules lawyer, but if I were in charge I would enforce the following:

1. If a 'normal' crypt group is dealing with Chottal and some asshat(s) move into the crypt or any of its rooms, they should get the boot. Rogean's ruling was fine for the first month of Kunark when there were 75 people in Sebilis, but IMO its just one camp now.

2. If some shaman/enchanter/etc is clearing the Hierophant and the Duke and in one of their rooms, he gets the entire crypt (he is after all clearing 99% of its monetary value) but not the emperor. Of course if he wants to work something out with the incoming crypt group (preferable) then that is fine. Going AFK with a 'im camping the crypt' message is highly recommended in this case.

3. If some shaman/enchanter/etc is clearing only one of the spawns (i.e. group shows up and the 'other' spawn stays up for 5+ minutes) then they can claim the rest of the Crypt and the emperor per rule 1, with the exception of the room previously held.

This is all more or less common sense to me.

[Thulack]

I'm no rules lawyer, but if I were in charge I would enforce the following:

1. If a 'normal' crypt group is dealing with Chottal and some asshat(s) move into the crypt or any of its rooms, they should get the boot. Rogean's ruling was fine for the first month of Kunark when there were 75 people in Sebilis, but IMO its just one camp now.

2. If some shaman/enchanter/etc is clearing the Hierophant and the Duke and in one of their rooms, he gets the entire crypt (he is after all clearing 99% of its monetary value) but not the emperor. Of course if he wants to work something out with the incoming crypt group (preferable) then that is fine. Going AFK with a 'im camping the crypt' message is highly recommended in this case.

3. If some shaman/enchanter/etc is clearing only one of the spawns (i.e. group shows up and the 'other' spawn stays up for 5+ minutes) then they can claim the rest of the Crypt and the emperor per rule 1, with the exception of the room previously held.

This is all more or less common sense to me.

This. The main point is that us as players should be able to settle this and not get the GM's into making the rules.

[Lojik]

I don't think the ruling is that bad
PersonA- Camping Duke +Hiero
GroupB- Claiming whole crypt
PersonA can only claim one camp, as GroupB is only claiming one camp (crypt sans whatever PersonA camping)

But eh not too pressed on whatever the ruling is, people take this stuff too seriously imo
Ready to be flamed...Go!

[Nastinate]

This. The main point is that us as players should be able to settle this and not get the GM's into making the rules. agreed

The rules have always been pretty black and white so that people cant abuse them, if u complicate the rules your gonna open up all sorts of loop holes.

[freez]

derub ur so mean 2 me

[fadetree]

This. The main point is that us as players should be able to settle this and not get the GM's into making the rules.

Yup, we should be. But we aren't.

[Spitty]

Propose -

When camping crypt, you are entitled to claim the spawns you are currently clearing - i.e. you can camp the Hierophant by yourself, or you can camp the entire crypt and emperor with your group.

The only exception is if you are camping specific spawns without clearing the entire crypt and without sufficient force to do so, and a sufficient group arrives with intent to clear the entire camp. In this scenario, you need to select a single target to engage first and acknowledge that the remaining spawns are open to being contested by the arriving group. Example - you are clearing the Duke and Hierophant PHs and a group arrives. You select Duke to be your camp and FTE rules apply to all other mobs - Hierophant included.

[Lojik]

Propose -

When camping crypt, you are entitled to claim the spawns you are currently clearing - i.e. you can camp the Hierophant by yourself, or you can camp the entire crypt and emperor with your group.

The only exception is if you are camping specific spawns without clearing the entire crypt and without sufficient force to do so, and a sufficient group arrives with intent to clear the entire camp. In this scenario, you need to select a single target to engage first and acknowledge that the remaining spawns are open to being contested by the arriving group. Example - you are clearing the Duke and Hierophant PHs and a group arrives. You select Duke to be your camp and FTE rules apply to all other mobs - Hierophant included.

I thought that was what was proposed? I think I need an actual lawyer to understand these rules.

[Freakish]

On the matter of Crypt I would go with:
PersonA is camping Duke+Heiro (or whatever combination). They have claim to both mobs as they were there first.
GroupB comes in and tries to rule lawyer PersonA out of there. GroupB should have no say as PersonA is only killing the parts of the camp that he wants. GroupB can have any of the spawns PersonA allows them but needs to leave PersonA mobs alone.

In this situation GroupB is being a drain on society. They have no right to any of the mobs save for what PersonA allows.

Another situation: If you are currently clearing to a camp (say King in sebilis, so as not to confuse this with the Crypt issue) and a group jumps you as you're pulling mobs to get into camp position, you should have no claim over the group you just jumped. You would have had to kill the same monsters to get to the camp, you might have gotten to the single cash spawn first simply by running past the cleared area but you were not in the process of clearing the camp.

[Ele]

I thought that was what was proposed? I think I need an actual lawyer to understand these rules.

Ask two lawyers to read the same rule and you'll get two different outcomes.

[Millburn]

Ask two lawyers to read the same rule and you'll get two different outcomes.

Which is why having a rule with all these addendum's and exceptions is destined to fail, it has to be simple and understandable.

Crypt is a 4 slot camp, any individual or group can claim any part(s) of the 4 slot camp that they demonstrate as having the ability to clear and maintain and is not presently claimed by another individual or group.

Everything falling outside this should be decided on play nice rules.

[Spitty]

I'm stating that if one person is camping Duke and Hiero, that person can't claim the entire crypt but still retains the right to at least claim one mob, and can competitively work towards maintaining both spawns. That's essentially what this entire discussion is stemming from.

It's unreasonable to allow a person to claim the entire place whilst sitting in the Duke room, and it's unreasonable to allow a group to roll in and force that same person out of every spawn in the area.

[Nirgon]

People won't follow the rules you put in place and a GM will need to handle things from time to time.

Hence why I posted what I posted :P.

A claimed spawn should be pretty obvious as should someone who is taking too long to pull it after it pops.

[Spitty]

I'm not a fan of complications, but let's be honest here - the only reason this is an issue is because people farm cloaks and bracers solo/duo, and that clashes with groups wanting to come down and clear everything.

My suggestion accounts for the lonely people that spend their time sitting in one room and makes it so the rest of the mobs don't go to waste if a group shows up.

[Iliilliill]

PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, PlayerA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".

Keep in mind that the common sense way to deal with this is to say "stop being dumb and let them clear the other three rooms", but there are so many rule lawyers on this server, and everyone wants to call foul when a guide/gm comes in and doesn't follow the rules laid out in the forums. The last thing our Guides need is more headaches.
Seems to me that GroupB rule lawyered first.
If PlayerA is able to hold Hiero and the Duke on their own within a reasonable time of the mobs spawning, wouldn't common sense be that he's free to claim the two? He's not being greedy or trying to get more than he's reasonably able to control.
(This assumes people are being reasonable and I'm sure you're more aware than others that most people are unreasonable when it comes to their pixels, and nobody is reasonable 100% of the time :D )


For example, if I'm sitting at the Mistmoore pond killing just one of the little two spawns in the corner, and a full group comes in and wants to kill those mobs, can I sit there and continue to kill those two mobs while they clear everything else? Sure, why not? You were there first and could continue without the group disturbing you (ideally)
What happens if in the process of killing those two mobs I aggro other nearby mobs from the camp the other group is clearing around me? Am I allowed to kill those mobs to defend myself, or do I need to leave them for the group and let them kill me because I'm standing in the middle of a camp killing two mobs while the group kills the rest? If the group wasn't there and you aggroed them, you would die (or have to engage) and it would be your fault, why would the groups presence change what you engage? if it happened, it would have to be sorted out by the players (either die or kill mobs) and hopefully not have it repeated. imo this would be the oddball occurrence vs normal camping, so imo the process shouldn't be catered to the oddity

If it DOESNT apply to all 'camps' how do we define which camps it DOES apply to? probably why SOE never acknowledged camps. but, this is of course a diff situation


lowbie analogy: i logged my shaman in to South Karana the other night to kill some trees. Trees are two static six minute solo pulls, when i logged in I found someone only able to kill one. by the time they could recover from the first, it had repopped and they couldn't move on to the second. Did I kick them out because I can handle two at a time? No, I asked them if I could take the other one (they agreed) and in my down time I buffed them so they could kill some roaming trash as well. And good guy that I am I didn't even ninja the repop while they were gone.

I was even in the reverse situation killing some guards: I could only kill two in an area and when a higher level player came to the camp, they let me keep my two and only pulled the guards I was unable to engage.

Agreed, and you shouldn't have to kill all the extra spawns to hold claim to the camp as long as you're killing the main attraction (in your example, the king and the tactician, or in the crypt example, the four named spawns) and keeping them clear. Why are all 4 crypt spawns the main attraction? if all PlayerA wants is two named in the area that's his main attraction, and if uncontested when he gets there IMO he should be free to kill the two.

I changed the wording in the original post. PlayerA isn't an asshole because he wants to solo camp a mob - that's all good. In my example I changed his name to AssholeA because he was then lawyering the camp rules to limit a group of 6 to one room, and thus likely make them leave
Is the fun/pixels of 1 person less important than that of a group?

I found this last post from the Camps Defined thread relevant:
Camping a mob is a privelege, not a right. If someone wants the privelege of having sole claim to a mob, they have to make the sacrifice of whatever else they could be doing with themselves. Claim to a camp is a considerable advantage, it comes with a cost. Choose wisely.
If GroupB wanted to lawyer a mob away from someone they are sacrificing their time and effort to do so. Leaving to kill another mob would be a forfeit of that effort to control the first mob, and if they expected to return to the first uncontested they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.


I appreciate everything the support staff does here, I've never even had a situation that needs mediation leaving one party pissed off. Always dealt with fairly and with the betterment of the server in mind. Wish more players just followed the "don't be a douchebag" style of play, but TBH most of the conflict I see comes from ForumQuesting.

[Nips]

I think the gms on this server are really really good, but that being said, they are wayyyy too unnecessarily active. Should just forgo a lot of the rules and let the players deal with it, that's part of what makes EQ fun after all. These rules are just too much, and its hard to even keep up with whats what. Its also just so non classic that anytime I've been involved in some kind of "ruling" it really ruins my eq experience.

[Vandy]

Seems to me that GroupB rule lawyered first.
If PlayerA is able to hold Hiero and the Duke on their own within a reasonable time of the mobs spawning, wouldn't common sense be that he's free to claim the two? He's not being greedy or trying to get more than he's reasonably able to control.
(This assumes people are being reasonable and I'm sure you're more aware than others that most people are unreasonable when it comes to their pixels, and nobody is reasonable 100% of the time :D )


I agree here that there seems to be some sort of double standard, that GroupB is fine and in the right to pull the "sit on NPC spawn point or it's not your camp" card to get their way but PlayerA is in the wrong to return the favor.

GroupB fully had the choice of killing the remaining 2 named in the area and crawling to the Emp/Blood spawn for a total of 4 named.

[Derubael]

Thank you all for the input! Locking thread.