Server rules on ancient cyclops spawn in OOT

[DMN]

Is this considered "non camp". You tag it (first) you bag it?

[delfi]

It is the very definition of a camp. A PH spawns every 5ish mins that you must engage quickly and kill. When the big fella eventually spawns, same goes for him.

However, It is rumored that AC can also spawn from any wandering cyclops in the zone. If that occurs he is free-for-all in that particular instance pretty much.

[azeth]

Not sure how this could ever be misconstrued as to not be a camp.

1 single PH for the AC... pretty clearly a camp.

[Swish]

The best lawyers might struggle to make a case that anyone can fte on it lol

[Cecily]

Is this considered "non camp". You tag it (first) you bag it?

Absolutely not. The Sro one is FTE, however.

[Sodors Finest Poster]

Arrghhh, my ring!

[Messianic]

If OOT AC isn't a camp then nothing is a camp

[Sodors Finest Poster]

If you arrive at the camp, see the PH up and no one is around is it yours even if someone was on a 'list' and not notified?

Asking for a friend, im a train so i dont wear boots.

[coki]

yeah gms dont care about theoretical lists, if ph is up and no one is around its yours if you engage it, you might get a bunch of whiny hate tells , but nothing they can do about it

[delfi]

It is yours Sodor. A camp isn't 'claimed/camped' if the PH is up and no one is within view of the PH.

However, if a camp holder is there, he is free to pass the camp to whoever he chooses. But if he leaves before the new person arrives, the camp is unclaimed and you can take it.

[Victorio]

Yeah, the camp holder should be there until the new person arrives. If the PH pops before the new person arrives and stays up unengaged for more than a minute, I'd go ahead and take it.

Note that if the camp holder just got a ring he can't continue to hold the camp and kill PHs to give his buddy more time to arrive.

[coki]

also if you are waiting on the camp aka next in line and the person gets his ring and then corpses said ring, the camp is also yours, and he must wait until you've gotten your ring to get the camp back if its just the two of you there

[MiRo2]

also if you are waiting on the camp aka next in line and the person gets his ring and then corpses said ring, the camp is also yours, and he must wait until you've gotten your ring to get the camp back if its just the two of you there

Note that if the camp holder just got a ring he can't continue to hold the camp and kill PHs to give his buddy more time to arrive.

What does getting your ring have to do with your ability to continue to hold the camp? I thought all you had to do was this:

a player should maintain a presence at or very near the spawn of the camp they are intending to hold, while keeping the placeholders of any relevant spawns dead.

Asking for a friend.

[Lojik]

What does getting your ring have to do with your ability to continue to hold the camp? I thought all you had to do was this:



Asking for a friend.

Cause someone used the rule to keep a high profile camp on lock down for over 2 months straight by corpsing lore items. Yes, one spawn for 2 months straight, not a typo

So they made a rule once you get your item, you no longer hold the camp

[MiRo2]

Cause someone used the rule to keep a high profile camp on lock down for over 2 months straight by corpsing lore items.

That is an extreme example, that likely deserved specific intervention by the staff. My question is would this situation deserve the same?

Note that if the camp holder just got a ring he can't continue to hold the camp and kill PHs to give his buddy more time to arrive.

Clarifying for a friend.

[Landael]

Cause someone used the rule to keep a high profile camp on lock down for over 2 months straight by corpsing lore items

o juicy, what was it? :D

[Rararboker]

Tranix was the mob in question. SolB

Lojik is correct, Miro2 is incorrect.

[MiRo2]

Lojik is correct, Miro2 is incorrect.

I didn't realize you could be incorrect in asking a question.

Additionally who is the official keeper of GM/Guide decision precedence? I would like to inquire about factors that lead to this decision so I can compare them to the ones I inquired about, since decisions are made on a case by case basis; maybe even see if there is already a precedence for this very camp!

[Naethyn]

GM's make rulings per situation. This has let to a great deal of verbal rules that aren't listed, but someone somewhere can say back on xyz the GM said this. Usually it has to do with rule ambiguity such as "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location." for example has turned into no one can be past the zone line while a raid mob is in window or you may get disqualified, because sometime years ago BDA was killing juggs and Trak spawned.

It is good that GM's can make decisions on the fly, but it results in a bunch of things new players would only know unless someone told them, and often don't make sense (like applying the same have to be at zone in logic for kael spawns)

[Swish]

The moment you have hard copies of written rules for every situation (which would be an encyclopedia anyway), you'll have people trying to bend them, twist them, reinterpret them...etc.

Stick to "don't be a dick" and you should be okay ;)

[MiRo2]

The moment you have hard copies of written rules for every situation (which would be an encyclopedia anyway), you'll have people trying to bend them, twist them, reinterpret them...etc.

My point exactly, but even without it, you have people saying you can't hold a camp five minutes past getting your drop so a friend can take over, because this one time a guy camped an eight hour spawn for a couple months and a GM/Guide put an end to it.

Apples to oranges.

Stick to "don't be a dick" and you should be okay ;)

This should literally be in the rule book. Would love to see more disputes settled at the expense of both parties involved because neither side could be civilized.

[Skinned]

My point exactly, but even without it, you have people saying you can't hold a camp five minutes past getting your drop so a friend can take over, because this one time a guy camped an eight hour spawn for a couple months and a GM/Guide put an end to it.

Apples to oranges.



This should literally be in the rule book. Would love to see more disputes settled at the expense of both parties involved because neither side could be civilized.

I think it would be up to the friend to be in line, and if a person is ahead of him in line, no cutting because you know the guy camping it.

[fastboy21]

Even with the "list rules" you can be a dick and play games by being dishonest. Putting alts on the list or guildmates not online yet. So and so is on the list, but he is playing his alt, etc...

Pure and simple: the EQ mechanics were either intentionally or unintentionally designed to always allow douchebagery. Its what makes the game so fun; not because we are douchebags, but because it makes real friendships and reputations mean more.

So: don't be a dick.

[Doctor Jeff]

If you want to take over the camp, why don't you just kill the guy that is doing it at the time?

[MiRo2]

I think it would be up to the friend to be in line, and if a person is ahead of him in line, no cutting because you know the guy camping it.

"I've been shouting LFG for the past two hours, and a spot opens in "Awesome Camp" group, but they have a guildy who just logged on and they give him the spot instead of me"

or

"My group is camping "Not so Awesome Camp", and there is another group at "Awesome Camp", but now their tank and healer are leaving, they have replacements coming, but my group stated they wanted to move to their camp an hour ago"

"This is unfair! The rules clearly state the camp is MINE!"



Player agreements or server norms, are player enforced. People need to quit looking upwards to settle disputes, and form a semi-cohesive community instead.

Players who went against server norms in Classic were ostracized, but so were players who did nothing but whine and complain to the zone or Guides/GMs for every, actual or perceived, slight against them.


If you want to take over the camp, why don't you just kill the guy that is doing it at the time?

o What guild is he in?
o Will a hit team show up to take it back?
o How will this make me look to the community?
o Can I even take this guy?

Are all legitimate questions to be asked in this situation. Unfortunately none of them matter on Red.

Project 1999 Red Server:
The quintessential Catch 22. It would be the BEST server around if it actually had a healthy player population and community to dole out occasional justice to the bad eggs; it will never be the best server because there isn't currently a healthly player population and community, because of the bad eggs currently there.

WipeItClean2016






P.S.
I haven't even been to the AC camp in OoT since 2011.

[Skinned]

"I've been shouting LFG for the past two hours, and a spot opens in "Awesome Camp" group, but they have a guildy who just logged on and they give him the spot instead of me"

or

"My group is camping "Not so Awesome Camp", and there is another group at "Awesome Camp", but now their tank and healer are leaving, they have replacements coming, but my group stated they wanted to move to their camp an hour ago"

"This is unfair! The rules clearly state the camp is MINE!"


I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about one person camping a single static spawn.

NN for arguments by analogy, those are weak, and we are talking about one thing and not that other thing you just made up.

[Lojik]

"I've been shouting LFG for the past two hours, and a spot opens in "Awesome Camp" group, but they have a guildy who just logged on and they give him the spot instead of me"

or

"My group is camping "Not so Awesome Camp", and there is another group at "Awesome Camp", but now their tank and healer are leaving, they have replacements coming, but my group stated they wanted to move to their camp an hour ago"

"This is unfair! The rules clearly state the camp is MINE!"



Player agreements or server norms, are player enforced. People need to quit looking upwards to settle disputes, and form a semi-cohesive community instead.

Players who went against server norms in Classic were ostracized, but so were players who did nothing but whine and complain to the zone or Guides/GMs for every, actual or perceived, slight against them.




o What guild is he in?
o Will a hit team show up to take it back?
o How will this make me look to the community?
o Can I even take this guy?

Are all legitimate questions to be asked in this situation. Unfortunately none of them matter on Red.

Project 1999 Red Server:
The quintessential Catch 22. It would be the BEST server around if it actually had a healthy player population and community to dole out occasional justice to the bad eggs; it will never be the best server because there isn't currently a healthly player population and community, because of the bad eggs currently there.

WipeItClean2016






P.S.
I haven't even been to the AC camp in OoT since 2011.

Your ideas about common sense and player agreements go out the window when:
1) A lot of the community doesn't give a shit about the "community"
2) Staff are limited in what they can do in terms of enforcement
3) Even if a player is banned it's FREE to start a new account and get PLed by your fellow scumbags

Classic EQ has a lot of mechanics that allow for douchebaggery like people said, unless you change mechanics there are people who push the rules and people look to prior rulings for precedent. A lot of situations that come up aren't even two parties being douchebags to each other, just that there's no real clear cut way to settle things...look at people who like NBG v. greed rolls it's fairly split on that topic.

P.S. Posting for a friend

[MiRo2]

NN for arguments by analogy, those are weak, and we are talking about one thing and not that other thing you just made up.

I'm sorry, let me try again.

Camper A, "Hey Camper C, come join my group at AC in OoT!" or "/gu I'm about to log off, anyone want to take over my camp?"
Camper C, "Sure!"
Camper A, "Welp time for me log off, good luck with AC Camper C!"
Camper B, "Hey, I was next on the list!"
Camper C, "What list?"
Camper B, "/petition dey took my merb!"

Add as much or as little time between lines as you feel is necessary.



My point is unchanged. Player agreements and server norms are player enforced. Sever Staff decisions are made on a case by case basis on all the factors involved; player statements/opinions/observations made from those decisions are not server rules.

If the server norm is a running list for AC:OoT, then its player enforced. Why is attempting to call the "ban hammer" rather than let the community(Red:PvP, Blue:Reputation) deal with it the first option?

[MiRo2]

Your ideas about common sense and player agreements go out the window when:

1) A lot of the community doesn't give a shit about the "community"

Why do they have to go out the window? A lot of the community not caring, means it is not a community.

2) Staff are limited in what they can do in terms of enforcement

This is healthy for the server, forcing decisions down the throats of players only encourages "rule lawyering" and discourages any actual community from forming.

3) Even if a player is banned it's FREE to start a new account and get PLed by your fellow scumbags


Let's hope that if they do open a new server, there is a feature that discourages this.

Let's also hope someone else posted between my last post and this one!



Posting for an acquaintance.

[coki]

its been stated by sirken i believe in another oot AC camp thread like this one that if you get your item, the camp is defaulted to the next available person whether it be your friend who is there to take the camp or someone else who kills the next ph

[Trungep99]

only if the person who was camping it walked away, or possibly an extended afk would someone else be able to claim it. but i wouldn't ever think about contesting such a camp

[azeth]

On lists:

1. The moment someone rightfully possesses a camp (by rule) they may pass the camp to whomever they choose

2. Don't rely on lists

Example:

- Player A holds a camp and players B and C are on the list as next up and next-next up

- Once Player B receives the camp, he has absolutely 0 obligation to abide by any sort of list to pass his camp on when he's done

Exception to all of this -

If someone on the "list" maintains a presence at the camp during the switch, they rightfully own the camp.

[Tewaz]

OP needs to come play red. We like your attitude there.

[Skinned]

I'm sorry, let me try again.

Camper A, "Hey Camper C, come join my group at AC in OoT!" or "/gu I'm about to log off, anyone want to take over my camp?"
Camper C, "Sure!"
Camper A, "Welp time for me log off, good luck with AC Camper C!"
Camper B, "Hey, I was next on the list!"
Camper C, "What list?"
Camper B, "/petition dey took my merb!"

Add as much or as little time between lines as you feel is necessary.



My point is unchanged. Player agreements and server norms are player enforced. Sever Staff decisions are made on a case by case basis on all the factors involved; player statements/opinions/observations made from those decisions are not server rules.

If the server norm is a running list for AC:OoT, then its player enforced. Why is attempting to call the "ban hammer" rather than let the community(Red:PvP, Blue:Reputation) deal with it the first option?

I'm not thinking about a "list" as much as somebody sitting there in line. The situation I'm referring to is player A is camping AC. Player B is sitting there waiting in line, possibly for hours. Person A gets the Ring of the Ancients on the spawn, and artificially holds up the progression of the camp for player C, who hasn't even been there, because he is friends with player A, which is more opposition to nepotism trumping fair play over not honoring an imaginary list.

If player B is on some sort of "list" like "send me a tell when you're done with this camp" and not physically (pixelly) there, then call a friend, there is no obligation to pass the word on that the camp is open to anybody, with that I agree.

I believe it is in the spirit of the First Come First Serve rule of classic EQ that the next person in line gets the camp, because he is there first.

Now if Player A is killing the AC, and does not agree to pass the camp on to Player B, and Player C is successfully able to get to the camp, group up for the kill assist, then Player C wants to keep the camp...that is a tough situation. I would say that Player C should have to wait in line like Player B, but that is opinion and there isn't a clear way.

[Nirgon]

Dear Llandris,

feel free to make OOT red 4 lvl ffa and copy Jeffgoldblum over

I'll straighten things out