RE: Camping

[Hitpoint]

Edit: to be clear this thread is about camped toons.

Response to this thread.

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138177

Here are the raid rules on where you are allowed to camp and park.


Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location.
To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets.


Taken from: http://www.project1999.com/raid.php

Nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to a certain amount of people being camped in zone. You just can't be parked near the mobs spawn point. If the intention is to keep people from camping out inside a raid zone, they can easily change the word "vicinity" to "zones." Guilds who are parking at zone ins are not breaking the rules and will not be punished. I have only ever read that parking inside the planes may not be okay, as both planes are very small and the zone ins are relatively close to the mobs. If anything, this is what needs clarification.

I don't understand where all the misinformation in that thread came from. It might be due to confusion with the raid rules from one of the other proposed raid plans that didn't pan out. Never the less, with the exception of plane of hate/fear, it's pretty much accepted that the zone in is an okay place to camp out a raid in every other zone.

If GMs want to specify further, they can. But right now, guilds who are following the letter of the law are not taking advantage of anything or breaking any rules. All other raid guilds should be doing the same if they can. Nothing coming from me is official in any way, but I think this is the mindset of all the guilds who currently are camping inside raid zones. I hope this clears something up for those who are purposely avoiding being parked in the same zone.

[Tiggles]

Big shock some FE scumbag trying to exploit rules to eek out more mobs.

You already cheat the 2 mob bag limit by raiding as "different guilds" now you want to camp out characters again?

Trust me you'd lose 90% of the mobs like you did in the old days if other guilds could camp out characters.


Send this thread to RnF where it belongs.

[Hitpoint]

People are going to take that post seriously.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Response to this thread.

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138177

Here are the raid rules on where you are allowed to camp and park.


Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location.
To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets.


Taken from: http://www.project1999.com/raid.php

Nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to a certain amount of people being camped in zone. You just can't be parked near the mobs spawn point. If the intention is to keep people from camping out inside a raid zone, they can easily change the word "vicinity" to "zones." Guilds who are parking at zone ins are not breaking the rules and will not be punished. I have only ever read that parking inside the planes may not be okay, as both planes are very small and the zone ins are relatively close to the mobs. If anything, this is what needs clarification.

I don't understand where all the misinformation in that thread came from. It might be due to confusion with the raid rules from one of the other proposed raid plans that didn't pan out. Never the less, with the exception of plane of hate/fear, it's pretty much accepted that the zone in is an okay place to camp out a raid in every other zone.

If GMs want to specify further, they can. But right now, guilds who are following the letter of the law are not taking advantage of anything or breaking any rules. All other raid guilds should be doing the same if they can.

LOL... we just had an entire thread (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137165) where BDA was told "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location" somehow meant that you cannot have more than two representatives in the zone, and that "how can it be any more clear than that?"

Yes, and yes.

How daft can you be? You can't have people in PoFear killing trash for armor, why the hell would you be able to have people xping in KC?

Sitting at zone in? Just sit the fuck outside the zone line. What isn't clear about not being in the zone when the raid mob spawns?

Cognitive thought process must completely fucking escape you... do you need a connect the dots done for you? If you have more than 2 ppl in the zone, exping or otherwise, you are pooched. If you have 2 ppl, you are good to go. Start your engines. How fucking hard was that? Lookin your way Samoht.

If Rogean suspended BDA for violating "the spirit of the rules", i.e.:

"That is way too close, not to mention the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules."

then

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets"

sure better mean players are to not camp out in the same zone, as "vicinity of raid targets" is a much larger area than "at a raid spawn location."

TL;DR: you can't have it both ways... if having more than 2 reps in the same zone as a target when it spawns disqualifies you from that target, then having a camped-out force in the same zone as a target when it spawns also disqualifies you from that target.

[Hitpoint]

LOL... we just had an entire thread (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137165) where BDA was told "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location" somehow meant that you cannot have more than two representatives in the zone, and that "how can it be any more clear than that?"





If Rogean suspended BDA for violating "the spirit of the rules", i.e.:

"That is way too close, not to mention the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules."

then

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets"

sure better mean players are to not camp out in the same zone, as "vicinity of raid targets" is a much larger area than "at a raid spawn location."

TL;DR: you can't have it both ways... if having more than 2 reps in the same zone as a target when it spawns disqualifies you from that target, then having a camped-out force in the same zone as a target when it spawns also disqualifies you from that target.

Those posts are talking about characters being logged in. Mine is talking about parking camped toons. Perhaps I should be more clear next time. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to have a discussion to clear up the rules. Also, you are quoting Kagatob.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Those posts are talking about characters being logged in. Mine is talking about parking camped toons. Perhaps I should be more clear next time. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to have a discussion to clear up the rules.

I understand that. I am saying that if the reasoning from the playerbase was that BDA shouldn't have more than 2 reps in the same zone when the wording is "no more than 2 reps at a raid target spawn", then you definitely shouldn't have camped/parked toons logged out in the same zone when the wording is "anywhere in the vicinity of the raid mob", as that implies an even larger area where you can't have camped-out toons than the other rule.

I also quoted Rogean himself who said the spirit of the rule is you should not have a raid force present anywhere in the zone. If that can somehow be extrapolated from "at a raid target spawn" from the rule we got suspended for, then it certainly applies to "anywhere in the vicinity of a raid spawn" for the rule you're seeking clarification on.

[quido]

Perhaps we should come up with some suggestions as far as where the line is drawn in each zone.

[Kope]

Perhaps we should come up with some suggestions as far as where the line is drawn in each zone.

I do agree with this, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier if that line is set IN the zone? As in if you're inside the zone you're violating the rule, anything outside of the zone is fair game.

[Hitpoint]

I can't speak for the whole playerbase. I'm sure that thread is filled with misinformation. But from what I remember, the real problem with the BDA thing is that there was a whole raid logged in and fighting halfway to Trakanon, and logs showed that a mob relatively close to Trakanon's lair had been killed recently. That's a huge difference from being camped at the zone in waiting for a coth. I think the rules allow for that difference.

Logically the zone in is what makes sense because it's the farthest you can reasonably be away from a raid mob, while still being in the same zone. Maybe, in theory there, are places that you can be which are still not in the vicinity of a raid target, but everyone just wants to play it safe and use zone in as the default. I think that's smart, and we should just make it an unofficial or maybe official rule.

[Tanthallas]

The...zone in?

[YendorLootmonkey]

I do agree with this, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier if that line is set IN the zone? As in if you're inside the zone you're violating the rule, anything outside of the zone is fair game.

[Tanthallas]

If you want to raid the target in window, you sacrifice the ability to run around the zone like retards.

Your raid force waits at the zone in, other than two representatives / trackers who are allowed to be wherever the want doing retarded things.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I can't speak for the whole playerbase. I'm sure that thread is filled with misinformation. But from what I remember, the real problem with the BDA thing is that there was a whole raid logged in and fighting halfway to Trakanon, and logs showed that a mob relatively close to Trakanon's lair had been killed recently. That's a huge difference from being camped at the zone in waiting for a coth. I think the rules allow for that difference.

Nope, Rogean clearly said in our suspension thread (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1284600&postcount=1):

"the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules"

This was extrapolated from:

"Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location."

So I don't see how "the vicinity of raid targets" from:

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets."

would mean anything less than outside of the zone. Unless we're now making exceptions for violating the spirit of the rule.

[Kope]

Your raid force waits at the zone in, other than two representatives / trackers who are allowed to be wherever the want doing retarded things.

If you go this route what constitutes the zone-in? you don't want to camp on all your friends so is 5 feet away ok? How about in TD Since zone-ins are on a boat, is the nearest land ok? Any land that that boat takes you to?

This leaves WAY too much for interpretation and rule-lawyering. If we want to make this all easier on both the staff and the playerbase, anything inside the zone (other than 2 reps) is off limits, anything outside of the zone is totally fair game.

[Hitpoint]

Nope, Rogean clearly said in our suspension thread (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1284600&postcount=1):

"the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules"

This was extrapolated from:

"Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location."

So I don't see how "the vicinity of raid targets" from:

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets."

would mean anything less than outside of the zone. Unless we're now making exceptions for violating the spirit of the rule.

Imo he is very clearly talking about toons that are logged in.

[Tanthallas]

Being able to raid is turning Yendor into Alarti. Very soon he will be flooding online dating sights....unless this has already happened. Dear god.

[Frogie305]

Imo he is very clearly talking about toons that are logged in.

LOGIC? GO AWAY LOGIC IS NOT ALLOWED!

[Tanthallas]

If you go this route what constitutes the zone-in? you don't want to camp on all your friends so is 5 feet away ok? How about in TD Since zone-ins are on a boat, is the nearest land ok? Any land that that boat takes you to?

This leaves WAY too much for interpretation and rule-lawyering. If we want to make this all easier on both the staff and the playerbase, anything inside the zone (other than 2 reps) is off limits, anything outside of the zone is totally fair game.

The god damn place you zone into the zone from.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Imo he is very clearly talking about toons that are logged in.

I know that. Focus on the phrases I bolded. If "at a raid spawn location" means "anywhere in the zone" then "in the vicinity of the raid target" must also mean "anywhere in the zone", regardless of what you are talking about. How can you possibly refute the English language?

[YendorLootmonkey]

Being able to raid is turning Yendor into Alarti. Very soon he will be flooding online dating sights....unless this has already happened. Dear god.

Nope, just making sure the playing field is level based on what my guild recently got suspended for. If "at a raid target spawn" means "anywhere in zone", then so does "in the vicinity of a raid target." Until the GMs clarify what they mean or what the intent was.

[Hitpoint]

If you go this route what constitutes the zone-in? you don't want to camp on all your friends so is 5 feet away ok? How about in TD Since zone-ins are on a boat, is the nearest land ok? Any land that that boat takes you to?

This leaves WAY too much for interpretation and rule-lawyering. If we want to make this all easier on both the staff and the playerbase, anything inside the zone (other than 2 reps) is off limits, anything outside of the zone is totally fair game.

Ogre island in TD has been okay thus far. Zone lines for all other outdoor dragons. Wiz spire for Hate, Fear portal for Fear. Zone in at KC and Seb. Everything has been very civil so far. There has been no rule lawyering until right now arguably. I'd say this is more about people misunderstanding the rules than lawyering to get some advantage though.

[Tanthallas]

Your guild got suspended for having an army 'in the vicinity' of trakanon. You were warned and you fully understood that you could not be anywhere near Trakanon. You said you were 'practicing' running around a wall to engage him when he spawned; the response is that you should be 'practicing' when Trakanon is not in window if you intend on engaging that Trakanon.

The situation needs zero clarity - no guild but your guild has engaged a raid mob with their forces at any location other than the zone in when that raid mob has spawned. The only exception may be Fay; I really hope the GMs make raid forces wait in the water where the raft lands instead of ogre island though. FE fully supports water-only Fay kills.

[Kope]

The god damn place you zone into the zone from.

Ogre island in TD has been okay thus far. Zone lines for all other outdoor dragons. Wiz spire for Hate, Fear portal for Fear. Zone in at KC and Seb. Everything has been very civil so far. There has been no rule lawyering until right now arguably. I'd say this is more about people misunderstanding the rules than lawyering to get some advantage though.

This is the problem, between these 2 posts the rules got stretched and left for interpretation.

Why not just make it easy on everyone including staff and just say outside of the zone? Why do you need to be IN the zone? What is the benefit to that as opposed to outside the zone?

[Fuddwin]

I know that. Focus on the phrases I bolded. If "at a raid spawn location" means "anywhere in the zone" then "in the vicinity of the raid target" must also mean "anywhere in the zone", regardless of what you are talking about. How can you possibly refute the English language?

Definitely still talking about characters actually logged in no? But yeh... what you have in bold means all the same... I suppose... Though it doesn't pertain to characters that are not actually logged in... meh

[YendorLootmonkey]

I'd say this is more about people misunderstanding the rules than lawyering to get some advantage though.

Correct... we want to make damn well sure we don't eat another suspension over some gray area we weren't aware of until the suspension happens. If we're camping toons at Oasis because we're afraid a GM is going to interpret "vicinity of the raid mob" as "anywhere in the zone" -- admit it, you have to agree BDA would have reason to be concerned about such an interpretation at this point -- and other guilds are camping at Ogre Island... we need to know what's kosher and what's not so we're all on a level playing field.

[Tanthallas]

This is the problem, between these 2 posts the rules got stretched and left for interpretation.

Why not just make it easy on everyone including staff and just say outside of the zone? Why do you need to be IN the zone? What is the benefit to that as opposed to outside the zone?

I dont believe you are being serious here.

[Fuddwin]

Correct... we want to make damn well sure we don't eat another suspension over some gray area we weren't aware of until the suspension happens. If we're camping toons at Oasis because we're afraid a GM is going to interpret "vicinity of the raid mob" as "anywhere in the zone" -- admit it, you have to agree BDA would have reason to be concerned about such an interpretation at this point -- and other guilds are camping at Ogre Island... we need to know what's kosher and what's not so we're all on a level playing field.


But were you suspended for having characters camped "in the vicinity"?

[Kope]

I dont believe you are being serious here.

So you can't tell me why it's too hard to camp outside the zone?

[YendorLootmonkey]

Definitely still talking about characters actually logged in no? But yeh... what you have in bold means all the same... I suppose... Though it doesn't pertain to characters that are not actually logged in... meh

Ignore the logged in/out status of the characters, stop getting hung up on that. Yes, I realize they are two different rules. It simply comes down to this:

If I tell you that "at Trakanon's spawn location" means "anywhere in the zone", then how does "in the vicinity of Trakanon's spawn location" not also mean "anywhere in the zone"?

[Tanthallas]

They were suspended for having their force online around the juggs when Trakanon spawned, and merily skipping to Trakanon and engaging him with that same force.

[Tanthallas]

So you can't tell me why it's too hard to camp outside the zone?

Its not hard; its also not necessary.

[YendorLootmonkey]

They were suspended for having their force online around the juggs when Trakanon spawned, and merily skipping to Trakanon and engaging him with that same force.

But the rule was "at the spawn location". We were not at the spawn location. We weren't even in the lair. Rogean extrapolated "at the spawn location" to mean "anywhere in the zone". Thus, "in the vicinity of the spawn location" must also mean "anywhere in the zone."

I don't necessarily care which it is so long as ALL GUILDS are on the same page, but as you can see, the wording requires clarification. The same clarification that BDA was ridiculed for asking for in the other thread.

[Fuddwin]

But the rule was "at the spawn location". We were not at the spawn location. We weren't even in the lair. Rogean extrapolated "at the spawn location" to mean "anywhere in the zone". Thus, "in the vicinity of the spawn location" must also mean "anywhere in the zone."

YOU WIN!!! Show him what he's won!

[Hitpoint]

This is the problem, between these 2 posts the rules got stretched and left for interpretation.

Why not just make it easy on everyone including staff and just say outside of the zone? Why do you need to be IN the zone? What is the benefit to that as opposed to outside the zone?


I don't think they got stretched or interpreted in any unreasonable way. The raft takes you directly to the island. For all intents and purposes that can be considered the zone in. If the spot where the raft actually pulls up to the island is preferable then I don't see anyone having a huge problem with it. It's actually a better place to pull Fay, strategically. Since it's closer to reinforcements. Being on the island or in the back of the island makes no difference on a 10 minute Fay pull.

Being actually inside TD means you don't have to rely on boat timing for one. I don't see why TD should be treated differently than any other zone though, when it's by far the biggest in question.

[Kope]

I don't think they got stretched or interpreted in any unreasonable way. The raft takes you directly to the island. For all intents and purposes that can be considered the zone in. If the spot where the raft actually pulls up to the island is preferable then I don't see anyone having a huge problem with it. Being on the island or in the back of the island makes no difference on a 10 minute Fay pull.

Being actually inside TD means you don't have to rely on boat timing for one. I don't see why TD should be treated differently than any other zone though, when it's by far the biggest in question.

That's kinda the point though, the rules don't apply just to you, they apply to everyone so no one has an advantage and there's absolutely nothing left up to interpretation if you can't camp inside the zone of the mob you're going for. It's much easier on the staff and it's day and night for the players.

[Triangle]

I was in the zone when TMO engaged Fay and let me tell you it was shady as fuck. Floppie agroed him while there was no one else but him in zone. Then a bunch of tmo camped in - did not take the raft because no other guild was zoning in like that.

Does not matter what kind of rules we setup, tmo will try to break em /shrug

[Hitpoint]

That's kinda the point though, the rules don't apply just to you, they apply to everyone so no one has an advantage and there's absolutely nothing left up to interpretation if you can't camp inside the zone of the mob you're going for. It's much easier on the staff and it's day and night for the players.

I guess I just feel that there's nothing left for interpretation right now either. "Zone in" is very clear for every zone except TD (because of the raft I guess). And it is perfectly reasonable for us all to agree on ogre island or the raft landing on ogre island to be considered the "zone in."

[Hitpoint]

I was in the zone when TMO engaged Fay and let me tell you it was shady as fuck. Floppie agroed him while there was no one else but him in zone. Then a bunch of tmo camped in - did not take the raft because no other guild was zoning in like that.

Does not matter what kind of rules we setup, tmo will try to break em /shrug

How is this shady though? Trust me I was not happy that tmo got the pull/kill. But nothing egregious occurred here.

[Kope]

I guess I just feel that there's nothing left for interpretation right now either. Zone in is very clear for every zone except TD (because of the raft I guess). And it is perfectly reasonable for us all to agree on ogre island or the raft landing on ogre island to be considered the "zone in."

This is already a point of contention though, and this raid scene rule is how many weeks old? Stuff like this will only get more diluted over time unless we make the rule very easy to understand and interpret: Inside the zone: bad, outside the zone: good, done.

[Hitpoint]

I think it's solidified if anything. Just my opinion. Guilds aren't getting in trouble for rule violations anymore. This is the healthiest raid scene we've ever had, and I hope things will become even more routine.

[Kope]

I think it's solidified if anything. Just my opinion. Guilds aren't getting in trouble for rule violations anymore. This is the healthiest raid scene we've ever had, and I hope things will become even more routine.

Totally agree there, and I really have to thank the staff and the community for doing this together.

[reborn649]

Not a rule lawyer post! Simply curious...

Just so I am clear on all this. If a raid target spawns and there are more than 2 people in zone from the same guild it automatically disqualifies you. If you have a raid force camped out "X" distance to close to the raid target it automatically disqualifies you. If you have people camped out inside zone, but at the zoneline, it "possibly" disqualifies you.

My curiosity is this. Say you and a few friends from the same guild are running across DL to go do some XP'ing in KC and Gore pops... Your guild automatically DQ'd? Some low level alt's from your guild are about to wipe and train out of CoM and Sev spawns. To many people in zone from your guild and you are automatically DQ'd? What if your guild simply doesn't know the spawn timer on Trakanon and you have a guild group killing in Disco, are you automatically DQ'd? I think the most logical thing would just not to have a "group" near "X" raid target or camped out near "X" raid target. Camping at zonelines or a far enough distance away like ogre island for Fay are completely reasonable. IMHO I think not being able to have more than 2 people in a zone at a time from your guild is a little much. Mainly due to the fact that there could be multiple targets in window and your guild is stuck sitting in EC or something because there are limited options for places to go at higher levels. It's possible I am reading this completely wrong and way off here, but if that's the case just lemme know. Not here to pick a fight, just trying to think outside the box a bit if this is actually the case.

[Hitpoint]

Just for the sake of argument though. A real concern of mine, personally, is to prevent losing important people who may crash while zoning. I mean, being on one side of the zone line or another is very arbitrary. When I'm logging in for a raid target I'd just much prefer not risking the game crashing if I have some important job to do like pulling a dragon or something. If literally the only difference is whether we have to go through the extra load screen or not, I'd just prefer not to.

[Tegellan]

With all the 1018's happening right now while zoning. placing the camp out spot anywhere other then the Zone in might as well be rolling the dice rather then racing.

[Amra]

Crashing always happens...and is part of the race? The reason this thread is here was the close proximity TMO was to fay, and basically there was no competition for that mob. The only way another guild would have gotten fay yesterday was if TMO wiped. They pulled the mob as soon as it spawned, and then logged in their raid force waiting in zone. The first boat got into zone, and fay was already in their camp.

[Kope]

Just for the sake of argument though. A real concern of mine, personally, is to prevent losing important people who may crash while zoning. I mean, being on one side of the zone line or another is very arbitrary. When I'm logging in for a raid target I'd just much prefer not risking the game crashing if I have some important job to do like pulling a dragon or something. If literally the only difference is whether we have to go through the extra load screen or not, I'd just prefer not to.

With all the 1018's happening right now while zoning. placing the camp out spot anywhere other then the Zone in might as well be rolling the dice rather then racing.

I totally see where you're both coming from with zonecrashing (trust me, ask anyone that hung around me while I was leveling, I zonecrashed about every 3rd zone).

I'm honestly just concerned about the future and things that happen once tensions rise again of guild vs guild wars. It's going to happen, and when that happens rulelawyers will always come out. I was just trying to fight for the simplest, day and night ruleset, not to push anyone out of content or to give my guild incentive (I think I actually argued against a benefit my guild has) but to get the most simple ruleset possible.

[Hitpoint]

The reason this thread is here was the close proximity TMO was to fay, and basically there was no competition for that mob. The only way another guild would have gotten fay yesterday was if TMO wiped. They pulled the mob as soon as it spawned, and then logged in their raid force waiting in zone. The first boat got into zone, and fay was already in their camp.

Fay is always insta pulled. Been that way for years. If you are a guild that wants to kill fay during FFA, you should prepare to pull him when he spawns, your chances are just as good as anyone else's. And there definitely was competition for the mob. TMO puller got the tag but there were other pullers were there.

It is over 18,000 location units from fay's spawn to ogre island. They were definitely not close.

Crashing always happens...and is part of the race?

Maybe, but I wish it didn't have to be.

[Amra]

Fay is always insta pulled. Been that way for years. If you are a guild that wants to kill fay during FFA, you should prepare to pull him when he spawns, your chances are just as good as anyone else's. And there definitely was competition for the mob. TMO puller got the tag but there were other pullers were there.

It is over 18,000 location units from fay's spawn to ogre island. They were definitely not close.



Maybe, but I wish it didn't have to be.

I completely understand this! I am just adding my comment, because we need to know what is considered close. We could easily camped at Ogre island too, but don't want to get banned because we were "too close". I don't understand why the gms won't write up a list of where the "line" is for each mob and what constitutes too close. Obviously everyone wants to get the mob, and we just need to be racing from the same start line. All we are asking is to define the start line.

I personally think the whole no camping here or there thing is kinda stupid, but I'm just working with what we got!

[Hitpoint]

I completely understand this! I am just adding my comment, because we need to know what is considered close. We could easily camped at Ogre island too, but don't want to get banned because we were "too close". I don't understand why the gms won't write up a list of where the "line" is for each mob and what constitutes too close. Obviously everyone wants to get the mob, and we just need to be racing from the same start line. All we are asking is to define the start line.

I personally think the whole no camping here or there thing is kinda stupid, but I'm just working with what we got!

Fair enough. For the time being though, let your guild know that ogre island is fine unless otherwise specified by a GM in the near future.

[Amra]

Fair enough. For the time being though, let your guild know that ogre island is fine unless otherwise specified by a GM in the near future.

This would be fine if we weren't already banned before for being "too close". We don't want to be the next guinea pig when it comes to figuring out the new raid rules.

[Pheer]

I dont get how some BDA members still seem to think it was ambiguous that having half a raid killing mobs right next to trak lair was against the raid rules

[YendorLootmonkey]

I dont get how some BDA members still seem to think it was ambiguous that having half a raid killing mobs right next to trak lair was against the raid rules

Because the rule said "at the raid spawn" which we took to mean within aggro radius. Then it went from "juggs was too close" at the time of the ruling to "anywhere in the zone at the time of spawn" being the spirit of the rules we violated. What part of that is so hard to understand? The same way "in the vicinity of the raid target" is now being evaluated for the purposes of camping toons before someone gets suspended for being camped in the same zone as a raid target, logging in, and engaging.

[Tanthallas]

The same way "in the vicinity of the raid target" is now being evaluated for the purposes of camping toons before someone gets suspended for being camped in the same zone as a raid target, logging in, and engaging.

You are the only one evaluating that, however.

Yendor has been an outcast ranger for so long he has started arguing with himself. I always wondered what he did when he was hidden in the corner as far away from engages as possible.

[Pheer]

Because the rule said "at the raid spawn" which we took to mean within aggro radius. Then it went from "juggs was too close" at the time of the ruling to "anywhere in the zone at the time of spawn" being the spirit of the rules we violated. What part of that is so hard to understand? The same way "in the vicinity of the raid target" is now being evaluated for the purposes of camping toons before someone gets suspended for being camped in the same zone as a raid target, logging in, and engaging.

I'm just saying that you guys seemed to be the only ones who needed it explicitly stated that "in the vicinity" means more than just out of agro range. IB/FE/TMO arent dumb, don't you think if we were allowed to be "coincidentally" clearing juggs with 25+ people during trak window than we would have been doing it all along?

[YendorLootmonkey]

I'm just saying that you guys seemed to be the only ones who needed it explicitly stated that "in the vicinity" means more than just out of agro range. IB/FE/TMO arent dumb, don't you think if we were allowed to be "coincidentally" clearing juggs with 25+ people during trak window than we would have been doing it all along?

But the rules do not say "in the vicinity" though, do they?

The rule is, from http://www.project1999.com/raid.php :

"Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location."

Which we took to mean "within aggro range". If I am "at Trakanon's spawn location", that is not Juggs. That is not Shrooms. That is, at the very least, in the lair. The map showing the location of where we were does not put us in the lair:

http://www.project1999.com/bdajugg.jpg

Can you at least see some confusion on our part how the rule morphed from "at a raid spawn location" to "in the juggs caves"? If the rule said "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present in the vicinity of a raid spawn location." then yes, I fully admit there should have been zero confusion and zero need for clarification. But they do not say that. We found out what was intended the hard way. We do not want to make the same interpretation mistake for camped toons and where they are allowed.

[Pheer]

But the rules do not say "in the vicinity" though, do they?

The rule is, from http://www.project1999.com/raid.php :

"Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location."

Which we took to mean "within aggro range". If I am "at Trakanon's spawn location", that is not Juggs. That is not Shrooms. That is, at the very least, in the lair. The map showing the location of where we were does not put us in the lair:

http://www.project1999.com/bdajugg.jpg

Can you at least see some confusion on our part how the rule morphed from "at a raid spawn location" to "in the juggs caves"? If the rule said "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present in the vicinity of a raid spawn location." then yes, I fully admit there should have been zero confusion and zero need for clarification. But they do not say that. We found out what was intended the hard way. We do not want to make the same interpretation mistake for camped toons and where they are allowed.

Why would you think anywhere outside aggro range would be ok? Before the new policy TMO/FE/IB were camping out chars on the ledge around the corner from lair, even that is technically "out of aggro range"

[YendorLootmonkey]

Why would you think anywhere outside aggro range would be ok? Before the new policy TMO/FE/IB were camping out chars on the ledge around the corner from lair, even that is technically "out of aggro range"

Because that's what being "at a spawn location" means. You are physically at a spawn location. How is this so difficult to understand? If I am at Inny's spawn location, for instance... where am I? Not on the ramp. Not at Maestro. Not at the zone-in. Not at the bottom of the ramp. At Inny's spawn location, and the best assumption is that includes anywhere Inny could potentially aggro once he spawns because we are assuming we don't mean at his precise /loc.

Again, we found out the hard way and we won't make that mistake again. And it sounds like others don't want to find out the hard way either regarding camping toons out. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification so we can make sure we're all on a level playing field for competition.

[Ahldagor]

could just have everyone's starting point be toxxulia forest and no ports allowed

[Burrito]

Let's start a player agreed rotation of guilds to see where camping in toons is acceptable to eat raid suspensions. That way each guild can learn equally on mistakes. /sarcasm

[Lazie]

But the rules do not say "in the vicinity" though, do they?

The rule is, from http://www.project1999.com/raid.php :

"Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location."

Which we took to mean "within aggro range". If I am "at Trakanon's spawn location", that is not Juggs. That is not Shrooms. That is, at the very least, in the lair. The map showing the location of where we were does not put us in the lair:

http://www.project1999.com/bdajugg.jpg

Can you at least see some confusion on our part how the rule morphed from "at a raid spawn location" to "in the juggs caves"? If the rule said "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present in the vicinity of a raid spawn location." then yes, I fully admit there should have been zero confusion and zero need for clarification. But they do not say that. We found out what was intended the hard way. We do not want to make the same interpretation mistake for camped toons and where they are allowed.

Funny thing is I happened to be one of FE's people on ledge when you guys were down there...12 minutes before trak spawned you guys ran into Trak's lair...you didn't leave ledge till maybe 3 minutes before he spawned. Seriously how would you think 3 minutes later when he spawned it would be ok to engage him ? Considering you were still a 30 second run from ledge.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Funny thing is I happened to be one of FE's people on ledge when you guys were down there...12 minutes before trak spawned you guys ran into Trak's lair...you didn't leave ledge till maybe 3 minutes before he spawned. Seriously how would you think 3 minutes later when he spawned it would be ok to engage him ? Considering you were still a 30 second run from ledge.

Because we were not "at the spawn location". We know better now, don't we? :P

[Lazie]

Because we were not "at the spawn location". We know better now, don't we? :P

Ok either you are being intentionally daft or you are really daft. That is very close to the spawn location of Trak. Anything past the door you open with the torch is "at the spawn location". Saying otherwise is just silly.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Ok either you are being intentionally daft or you are really daft. That is very close to the spawn location of Trak. Anything past the door you open with the torch is "at the spawn location". Saying otherwise is just silly.

So what is "at Inny's spawn location"? What is "at Cazic Thule's spawn location"? Please list all of the spawn locations and the imaginary and arbitrary radii they encompass that was apparently decided in a meeting somewhere without BDA. Come on, get real.

[Daldaen]

Trying to argue you didn't know Juggs was off limits is pants-on-head levels of retarded.

Its pretty fucking clear that if Trak spawned a guild clearing Juggs would have a distinct advantage over any other guild. Period. End of Story.

If camping somewhere gives you a distinct advantage racing to a mob don't do it. Unless the zone is WCommons and you camp there for porting purposes. That is fine, legit and classic.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Trying to argue you didn't know Juggs was off limits is pants-on-head levels of retarded.

Its pretty fucking clear that if Trak spawned a guild clearing Juggs would have a distinct advantage over any other guild. Period. End of Story.

If camping somewhere gives you a distinct advantage racing to a mob don't do it. Unless the zone is WCommons and you camp there for porting purposes. That is fine, legit and classic.

We were following what the rules said, which I have stated multiple times is "at the spawn location". Stop being obtuse. We can't be held responsible for every guild's "interpretation" of the rules. We only got clarification from Rogean after the suspension was handed down. Now there's a bunch of armchair quarterbacking at our expense.

The way *I* interpret the rules is, "in the vicinity of the raid target" means you shouldn't be camped anywhere in the zone of the raid target. Other people are interpreting it as the zone-in. Who the hell knows which is okay until someone gets a raid suspension for doing the wrong thing again. That's what we're hopefully all trying to avoid here. Until then, we're just players throwing out speculation.

If we can all get on the same page together and agree to something, great. I just want everyone to be on the same page so no one has a distinct advantage when it comes time to compete because they are being liberal with an interpretation and we find out later that it was okay all along.

[Lazie]

So what is "at Inny's spawn location"? What is "at Cazic Thule's spawn location"? Please list all of the spawn locations and the imaginary and arbitrary radii they encompass that was apparently decided in a meeting somewhere without BDA. Come on, get real.

You are the one that needs "To get real". BDA clearly broke not only the spirit of the rule but the rule itself with that Trak engage and kill. Most of us were surprised it was only an 8 day suspension. You could park a raid at that same door and have Trak engaged in under 30 seconds.

[YendorLootmonkey]

You are the one that needs "To get real". BDA clearly broke not only the spirit of the rule but the rule itself with that Trak engage and kill. Most of us were surprised it was only an 8 day suspension. You could park a raid at that same door and have Trak engaged in under 30 seconds.

I'm glad you went that way with it. So, then, since we're truly dealing with "spirits of the rules", what is unwritten "the spirit of the rule" with regards to camping out toons "in the vicinity of a raid target"? That's what we're trying to figure out so no one gets surprised.

[Lazie]

I'm glad you went that way with it. So, then, since we're truly dealing with "spirits of the rules", what is unwritten "the spirit of the rule" with regards to camping out toons "in the vicinity of a raid target"? That's what we're trying to figure out so no one gets surprised.

You really are this dense..Wow.

[YendorLootmonkey]

You really are this dense..Wow.

Nope, answer the question I posed instead of hurling meaningless insults. This isn't RNF.

[Tasslehoff]

meaningless?

[YendorLootmonkey]

meaningless?

Still waiting on an answer to the question above, the insult is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Burrito]

I don't think Yendor is trying to argue that the Trak kill was legit. I think he's just trying to clarify what constitutes the rule, and clarify where/if camping is acceptable.

Everyone is dredging up shit just to harp on eachother rather than try to actually come to any conclusion.

[Lazie]

Nope, answer the question I posed instead of hurling meaningless insults. This isn't RNF.

You didn't really have a question that the rules don't already answer. When you actually ask a question that needs an answer instead of basically blaming ignorance for breaking rules then I will gladly answer a question for you.

[Burrito]

You didn't really have a question that the rules don't already answer. When you actually ask a question that needs an answer instead of basically blaming ignorance for breaking rules then I will gladly answer a question for you.

Ok let's do this one by one. Outside of the two representatives for your guild can you be in the zone when a raid mob spawns.

[dre]

big shock, rules exploitable and never thought through

[Burrito]

Just going to make my post now cause I don't want to wait around to do this point by point. People can read this and respond. This is just how I see it.

Ok let's do this one by one. Outside of the two representatives for your guild can you be in the zone when a raid mob spawns.

Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location.

So the answer is yes. I answer this tentatively because I would truly need to know what constitutes a raid spawn location.

From what I gathered from other people no one wants to have to do this on a per basis rule with even more lines and lines of text. The only thing we know from the previous raid suspension is that the supposed 30 second run distance it takes to get from X location to trak is obviously not acceptable. From the thread is seems that something like the distance from Fay spawn to ogre island is ok- but this distance can't even by applied to most zones. How do we consider situations like: "What if a group is doing king to trak?"

The whole problem is when this variable distance is left up to interpretation of a dozen different guilds then disagreements will exist. Even then it's just interpretation and in this time people will either accidentally break the rules, be ignorant, or try to push the limits- unless everyone just plays it safe and just rolls with not being in zone. What's wrong with asking clarification now?

So I guess we can discuss interpretations and ideas, or just continue hating on each other until we get a proper response. We could also just wait to get a proper response.

I'll start with the whole camping issue once this get's clarified.

[Lazie]

Ok let's do this one by one. Outside of the two representatives for your guild can you be in the zone when a raid mob spawns.

The way we have handled it for the most part is 2 at the spawn and no one else remotely close to the spawn outside of the planes and VP. For the planes we keep one tracker in zone and everyone else out of the zones although 2 are allowed in. Zone line is usually an acceptable place to be when a mob is in window. We have treated this as the only place to be in all situations outside of the planes.

[Burrito]

The way we have handled it for the most part is 2 at the spawn and no one else remotely close to the spawn outside of the planes and VP. For the planes we keep one tracker in zone and everyone else out of the zones although 2 are allowed in. Zone line is usually an acceptable place to be when a mob is in window. We have treated this as the only place to be in all situations outside of the planes.

To me- that seems reasonable enough. Especially with some people having issues with crashing on zone. Maybe others don't share the same view. ZL is a decent enough constant marker for most raid targets.

It's just a matter of outlining other details like zones without "zone lines" (ie planes/TD). You've outlined planes and TD seems to have decent enough consensus that Ogre Island is acceptable.

Then if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, zones like Seb which have a distinct zone in/zone out or port location, the zone in would usually take precedence.


Just don't be that person who inches up to some imaginary starting line and sit at the actual ZL.

Edit: This is now mostly my own opinion- I guess the only problem I see that comes out of this is that people are just socking zonelines instead of raid spawns. I'll just be happy that at least variance is gone. Just quote the edit if you want to flame me for this, and leave the other part of the post out

[baalzy]

I think the clear answer is to try it. Camp some alts wherever you feel is appropriate. if it's too close, then if you get to the mob and kill it and the devs deem it unfair they'll delete the loot and suspend you.