Mob Camping Rules

[aggrikta]

what are the rules for camping mobs?
If I camp a mob on my main, for an alt, which i have logged nearby. Can someone else ninja that mob whilst I am logging my alt in after I killed it, is that allowed or does taht break any rules?

[Hitchens]

I can't imagine why that would break any rules. You've given up your claim to the camp by logging out.

[aggrikta]

so it's ok if for example someone is camping a mob for an alt and I want that same mob, so when he logs after he's killed it to get his alt then I have equal rights to it?

[Destan]

Yes, you would. If he dies, logs out, or even goes AFK and it's sitting there spawned for an unreasonable amount of time you can claim it.

However, CAN you and SHOULD you are up to your discretion (or the other person if it's you logging out). Sometimes communicating can save a lot of trouble down the road.

[aggrikta]

does it break any server rules, if I want to camp something but someone else is, he spends hours there and i am waiting, mob spawns he kills and logs to alt. There are no rules broken if I loot?

[Danyelle]

does it break any server rules, if I want to camp something but someone else is, he spends hours there and i am waiting, mob spawns he kills and logs to alt. There are no rules broken if I loot?

You've asked this, with the same story in detail, 3 times now and been given the same answer twice. I'm going to answer a third time and hope it sinks in.

No. it does not. Officially. Unofficially by doing that you broke the unspoken "don't be a douche-bag" rule. You're not going to get in trouble with server staff. But you can bet, if it gets back to you, a lot of the population will steer clear of you.

[Lagaidh]

does it break any server rules, if I want to camp something but someone else is, he spends hours there and i am waiting, mob spawns he kills and logs to alt. There are no rules broken if I loot?

This is just my opinion, but if you decided to loot, you might not break a server rule, but you'd have broken the unwritten "Don't Be A Frickin' Dick" rule.

[Lagaidh]

Okay Danyelle... that was creepy =)

Near simulpost.

[aggrikta]

I'm just making sure, as I didn't know if it was a server rule or not, I'm camping something and someone is hovering, just a little bit gittery is all.

[Danyelle]

Okay Danyelle... that was creepy =)

Near simulpost.

One minute apart. We must be twins <3.

[Hitchens]

If the alt was incapable of clearing the camp, that makes your case even harder to make.

You took a risk and got burned. That's the price of taking a risk sometimes.

[Zapatos]

Can someone else ninja that mob whilst I am logging my alt in after I killed it

This isn't about holding or losing a camp, people. He's asking if someone can LOOT the mob he just killed while he's getting on his alt to loot it. A similar situation would be killing the Ancient Cyclops then logging to your level 1 or whatever alt to loot the ring, when someone trudges along and loots your ring.

At first glance, this IS ninja looting. But. Other factors come into play... how long did your switch on characters take? If the corpse only had/has a few seconds left, and you're not around, you can't blame the looter; he just saved a rot. But if you're saying you did make the switch before that, and the person still spam clicked and beat you to loot the moment the 5minute timer opened up... then that person is an a-hole and you've just been ninja'd.

[aggrikta]

Nothings happened yet but I am in control of a camp that this guy wants for his alt, which he's logged onto now and is waiting for some reason even after I said I'll be here for many hours, probably. I just wanted to know where I stood if he just decided to loot my drop for my alt. My alt is nearby, literally will take less than a minute after kill to be on the mob waiting to loot. Obvioulsy i will have to wait for the loot timer but then so will they. Just interested to know if I have any right to my own kill loot.

[Hitchens]

This isn't about holding or losing a camp, people. He's asking if someone can LOOT the mob he just killed while he's getting on his alt to loot it. A similar situation would be killing the Ancient Cyclops then logging to your level 1 or whatever alt to loot the ring, when someone trudges along and loots your ring.

A level one cannot kill the Ancient Cyclops therefore negating the alt's claim to the loot.

To me this is no different than dropping gear for an alt on the ground while you quickly log the alt to retrieve it.

[aggrikta]

wow and you'd be ok with taking someone drops like that?

[Hitchens]

Would I do it? No.

But there's a difference between ethical behavior and rule breaking behavior.

[aggrikta]

but you feel that if someone wants to camp something for an alt that could not kill the mob themselves and you knew this, you would loot it, knowing there was no rule breaking involved if you wanted the item for urself or your alt?

[Hitchens]

*Sigh*

There's some sort of communication barrier here.

[Frieza_Prexus]

When you kill a mob you own the loot rights to that mob.

There is established precedence here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=489619&postcount=1

Ninja looting is not a raid dispute. It is an individual basis. If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone, the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot. If they don't grant you permission to loot the corpse, you are violating an individual server rule by ninja looting.

Technically, if you kill an orc and run off a newbie looting that rusty axe is stealing your loot. That said, no one ever goes after the newbie. Because you ran away, you are likely ratifying his actions implicitly.

I would suggest you leave clear and documented instructions to the guy hovering around you that you will be logging to your alt and that under no circumstances do you cede the rights to your kill.

The only counter argument to Rogean's post that I see is that his post was in reference to a VP dragon kill. That said, he has clearly indicated this is an individual and not a raid level dispute.

TLDR: You kill it, you own it. If you told the guy to stay away, that additional evidence is unrequired, but helpful to your case.

[Callnoutthenewbs]

but you feel that if someone wants to camp something for an alt that could not kill the mob themselves and you knew this, you would loot it, knowing there was no rule breaking involved if you wanted the item for urself or your alt?

this guy is clearly is a retardo

Bottom line if you kill something and log off its fair game for whoever wants or comes by and loots said item

[Danyelle]

>Log off forums
>Come back 15 minutes later to a whole new page and still mass confusion

Oh god. I don't know how clear 9 different posters can make this...

[aggrikta]

how is there a language barrier, you said that a lvl 1 shouldn't have the loot rights to an a ring killed by the main of that account, if they couldn't kill it they lose rights to it? there is a language barrier but not from me. I don't know what players do and don't do, just what can they get away with.

[Frieza_Prexus]

It looks like it got missed in the shuffle over to page 2 so in case you missed it: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=635790&postcount=20

You kill it, you own it. There is established precedence to this.

[aggrikta]

I wasn't confused, i know i wouldn't do it just asked if it was ok to do it, tried a few different angles to put a slightly different spin on it thats all.

[Metallikus]

this guy is clearly is a retardo

Bottom line if you kill something and log off its fair game for whoever wants or comes by and loots said item

You are wrong, Xasten is clearly right.

[aggrikta]

Thanks Frieza, thats all i needed to know, just didn't know where to look .

[Hitchens]

It looks like it got missed in the shuffle over to page 2 so in case you missed it: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=635790&postcount=20

You kill it, you own it. There is established precedence to this.

Completely different context than killing something and logging off so an alt can loot it.

[Extunarian]

It looks like it got missed in the shuffle over to page 2 so in case you missed it: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=635790&postcount=20

You kill it, you own it. There is established precedence to this.

This situation....absolutely no different than dropping something on the ground. It's a risk you take. Have a friend loot for the MQ or just keep the corpse locked for you.

The people who try to ninja a corpse that someone was logging an alt to loot are certainly dicks and I don't condone it, but the people who would petition over this are wasting the guides' time imo. You can take precautions.

[Frieza_Prexus]

If a VP dragon is killed and the whole guild zones out and I log to my alt to loot the item, does that cede my loot rights?

I say the answer is that I clearly retain all rights. Given that Rogean's statement clearly homogenizes raid mobs and non-raid mobs for the rule's purposes, I fail to see your distinction.

Yes, you MIGHT argue that by logging you sent a message implicitly that you were giving up the loot rights. However, determining any implicit statments would be a factual inquiry unique to each situation. Implicit cessation of loot rights should be the exception and not the norm. That is precisely why I recommended he tell the individual lurking nearby that he does not, under any circumstances, cede his rights.

Ninja looting is not a raid dispute. It is an individual basis. If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone, the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot. If they don't grant you permission to loot the corpse, you are violating an individual server rule by ninja looting.

As for dropping items, I find two distinctions. 1. Rogean did not include item dropping in his statement. He clearly included any killed mob with unceded loot rights. 2. Item dropping has been explicitly recognized by rule-making authority as "at your own risk."

[Extunarian]

I wasn't confused, i know i wouldn't do it just asked if it was ok to do it, tried a few different angles to put a slightly different spin on it thats all.

lol

a dozen people say you can't claim a kill for an alt that you log over to and he keeps rephrasing the question.

one person says what he wants to hear and says 'thanks!'

[Hitchens]

If a VP dragon is killed and the whole guild zones out and I log to my alt to loot the item, does that cede my loot rights?

Reductio ad absurdum.

[aggrikta]

thats exactly what I have done Frieza, he seem ok. I think i just might have been overly suspicious and just wanted to check exactly whats what.

[Arrisard]

If the person who killed it logs off, that doesn't mean the other person who is hovering around has somehow gained permission to loot the corpse.

It's the original killer's loot up to and including rot unless he specifically gives you permission to loot it.

Don't understand how hard this is to grasp for some people. Go try taking something off of a raid corpse just because it went "public" and see what kind of response you get. It's no different from a tooth on Trak to an FBSS on Frenzied.

[Naelor]

What about somebody just happening to wander by, seeing a dead mob, and looting it? He doesn't know you are logging back in. How can that be 'your' kill?

Obviously that wouldn't happen in a raid setting, so I'm not talking about that situation, but could surely happen in a single-campable-mob situation.

And anyways, ultimately the system is the final arbiter on who 'owns' the kill...once it goes public, it goes public. Thats the whole point of that mechanic.

[Hitchens]

This is far more similar to dropping items on the ground for an alt to pick up than loot on a raid mob, therefore it is unreasonable to apply raid rules to the situation.

Individual opinions may vary.

[HIYO]

Calling out the noobs is a noob and has called himself out.

No one can loot a mob I kill without my permission, even if I log out to another char. What they can do when I log to another char, is take my camp.

Have a great day everyone !

[HIYO]

What about somebody just happening to wander by, seeing a dead mob, and looting it? He doesn't know you are logging back in. How can that be 'your' kill?


He does not need to know it is "MY" kill, all he needs to know is that it is not his kill.

[aggrikta]

If the person who killed it logs off, that doesn't mean the other person who is hovering around has somehow gained permission to loot the corpse.

It's the original killer's loot up to and including rot unless he specifically gives you permission to loot it.

Don't understand how hard this is to grasp for some people. Go try taking something off of a raid corpse just because it went "public" and see what kind of response you get. It's no different from a tooth on Trak to an FBSS on Frenzied.

Thats how I thought it should go tbh so was abit surprised with some of the replies.

[Frieza_Prexus]

What about somebody just happening to wander by, seeing a dead mob, and looting it? He doesn't know you are logging back in. How can that be 'your' kill?


I addressed that by saying it is technically a violation. That said, newbies are never "prosecuted" on this because 1. No body is going to bother and 2. You may have implicitly ceded rights by your own behavior.

This is why I said to determine guilt would be a factual inquiry into exactly what you did. The decision maker would then have to determine, based upon the situational facts, if you did cede your rights by your actions. This can easily be avoided if you tell the guy "I am logging over to my alt, you cannot touch my mob."

Reductio ad absurdum.

Not entirely. Absurdity exists when you move past what is reasonable. If there were an established principle that limited my hypothetical, then what I said could be fallacious. However, my example does exist. We've had people be the last one in the zone, while on an alt, to loot an item. I suggest, that because the situation can occur it is not absurd to use it as an example.

This is far more similar to dropping items on the ground for an alt to pick up than loot on a raid mob, therefore it is unreasonable to apply raid rules to the situation.

Individual opinions may vary.

I addressed this in a post above. Also, the linked statement from Rogean explicitly finds no distinction between raid mobs and the situation at hand.

[Naelor]

There's a distinction between 'rules', and 'things that would make people mad'. The 'rules' are enforced by the system. When the corpse goes public, its public, period as far as the system is concerned. Those are the 'rules'. The devs have stated there is an exception for raid mobs, and thats all well and good, but if it's not directly enforced by the system there's no point in calling it a 'rule'.

I totally agree you shouldn't loot someone else's mob that you are aware they are logging back in for, but that's a community standard and not a 'rule'.

[Frieza_Prexus]

^ False, no such distinction exists. Such a distinction is explicitly rebutted: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=489619&postcount=1

If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone, the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot. If they don't grant you permission to loot the corpse, you are violating an individual server rule by ninja looting.

[Atmas]

And anyways, ultimately the system is the final arbiter on who 'owns' the kill...once it goes public, it goes public. Thats the whole point of that mechanic.

I don't think you can go on the basis of that timer, in that case anyone who ever had something killed by someone else would have to contend with other people standing around.

If someone kills something they have the loot rights to it.

[Naelor]

...

no, they don't. The system makes the corpse public. You mean they SHOULD have loot rights exclusively. I agree. But they don't.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Naelor, if that is the case I ask that you respond to the statement from Rogean that I have referenced.

We cannot infer that the system allows loot rights to go FFA just because a corpse unlocks. Otherwise, ninjalooting could never be punished.

[Arrisard]

People have had disciplinary actions for taking items off a mob because a corpse went "public" because they did not have the owner's permission - I've seen it at both group and raid sized events.

People trying to say otherwise are either trolling or monumentally retarded. You *really* believe you can just walk by and take whatever off a corpse just because it's "public"? rofl

[aggrikta]

lol

a dozen people say you can't claim a kill for an alt that you log over to and he keeps rephrasing the question.

one person says what he wants to hear and says 'thanks!'

i rephrased it because I wasn't sure i was understood, I didn't think that was right as i have always thought it was perfectly acceptable to kill a mob with one toon and loot with another toon on ur account. Always done it and known others to do it, that was on live though.

[Hitchens]

You *really* believe you can just walk by and take whatever off a corpse just because it's "public"? rofl

It is my opinion that in this specific situation, the original poster had given up his claim to the loot by logging off.

If you want to misrepresent this position, you are certainly free to do so.

[falkun]

Xasten has shown that the owner of a kill must provide consent to allow others to remove loot from said kill.

Hitchens is arguing that consent is implied by logging the character.

Xasten has provided clarification that consent can be implied from the killer logging after killing, but that expressed consent or expressed denial of consent is within the killer's power to grant or deny via log/screenshot-able methods in chat prior to logging off as the killer.

Basically, cover your bases and expressly tell the other party they do -not- have permission to remove loot from the corpse while you log to an alt. As proven, GMs enforce this decision.

[Arrisard]

It is my opinion that in this specific situation, the original poster had given up his claim to the loot by logging off.

If you want to misrepresent this position, you are certainly free to do so.

The only misrepresentation is the one that you assert there is some unspoken exception to the stated server rules. And in all actuality, specifically refute what you are claiming.

Your opinion is wrong.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Relevant

[Hitchens]

Hitchens is arguing that consent is implied by logging the character.

That's a fair assessment. The position is based in the following sections of the rules:

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

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

To me, this is applicable to the situation. To others their interpretation of the rules are applicable as well. In the end only the GMs can decide.

[falkun]

By logging to loot an item on an alt, you may have an argument the player is no longer the owner of the camp. However, whatever mobs they have already killed at the camp belong to the person/group that obtained exp.

Camp ownership and loot rights are two separate issues.

[Hitchens]

Understood, but what if the alt cannot kill the mob that dropped the loot? Is the alt entitled to the loot?

Interesting discussion either way.

[Extunarian]

So if this server ever implements the 'hand items to mobs, mob drops those items on death' mechanic, does that mean it would be a sanctioned 100% safe way to transfer items? Give to mob, kill mob, log alt to loot?

I still don't see how it is different than dropping items on the ground. It is a risk you choose to take by not communicating with those around you, or having a friend help, or finding a safer spot, etc. And therefore shouldn't be something you can petition over.

But hey, it's obviously a gray area and up to guides to decide if they want to help, if this situation were to actually arise.

[muggro]

Seems pretty clear to me. If you kill a mob you have rights to it. Its your choice to decide who gets to loot even if it's your level 1 alt that you have to log out to switch to. However you have to maintain a prescence to hold the camp itself. So if you log to your alt to loot anybody wanting to claim the camp is within their rights to do so.

[Hitchens]

^saved

Edit: argh, post ruined. :(

Edit2: Ele is not to be trifled with.

[vinx]

the alt doesnt need to show the ability to kill the mob (its alrdy dead)
Camp ownership and loot rights are two separate issues.
and now you guys are trying a different angle that this is somehow = dropping bags for a transfer

you all know you didnt kill it
quit being greedy fucks and stop lawyering so you feel better about yourself when you ninja the loot

[Danyelle]

Wow

[Hitchens]

the alt doesnt need to show the ability to kill the mob (its alrdy dead)

and now you guys are trying a different angle that this is somehow = dropping bags for a transfer

you all know you didnt kill it
quit being greedy fucks and stop lawyering so you feel better about yourself when you ninja the loot

Comparison to dropping bags for a transfer was made on page two. This is page seven.

[vinx]

page 6 also if you been paying attn

point is: this is a corpse, with loot. in a camp
the two have seperate rules..the situation in question is about a corpse, not a camp or transfering items (you cant transfer what you dont have, you need to loot it first)

which makes this a loot issue
and in the rules, you cant loot a corpse you didnt kill without consent
that would make it ninja looting

[Hitchens]

No. This is page seven and at no point were my motivations to defend ninja looting, but instead to argue personal responsibility.

I don't think there's much left to discuss here.

[vinx]

I still don't see how it is different than dropping items on the ground. It is a risk you choose to take by not communicating with those around you, or having a friend help, or finding a safer spot, etc. And therefore shouldn't be something you can petition over.

But hey, it's obviously a gray area and up to guides to decide if they want to help, if this situation were to actually arise.
referenced on page 6

[Hitchens]

Check page two. The comparison was initially brought up there.

Good day.

[aggrikta]

This is interesting, but I think if you kill it, it's yours no matter what toon you loot it on, I can't see how it can be otherwise, you'd have to be very unlucky for someone to just happen upon it during the seconds it takes to jump toons.

[Callnoutthenewbs]

Calling out the noobs is a noob and has called himself out.

No one can loot a mob I kill without my permission, even if I log out to another char. What they can do when I log to another char, is take my camp.

Have a great day everyone !

If the timer goes and u log to a alt it it becomes open you better bet your ass im gonna loot it and im well within my rights to do so.

You had 5 mins to loot whatever was on it you clearly didnt and the loot is now open to me

[tekniq]

I really hope the shit you guys are discussing never really happens in game...it's bad manner to *intentionally try to fuck someone over for your own benefit. greedy shit like this is what rots our server. I thankfully have never had to deal with this, thank god.

[Frieza_Prexus]

If the timer goes and u log to a alt it it becomes open you better bet your ass im gonna loot it and im well within my rights to do so.

You had 5 mins to loot whatever was on it you clearly didnt and the loot is now open to me

Having the ability to do something does not equate to having the right to do it. Provide an analysis supported by some authoritative rules, and we might take you more seriously.

[Atmas]

I think Falkun's posts hit the nail on the head.

I'm going to take it a step further and say that people shouldn't assume logging a character should be taken as a person denouncing their loot claim. Rather the opposite view should be taken, that someone must explicitly give you loot rights for you to take an item from their kill.

I will agree that leaving a camp through travel or logging means giving up the camp and future kills, but not what you already killed.

Some people seem to think that an item going to rot is a validation for looting it, which is not the case.

Also, there is a fair amount of irony here for people joking about the OP not comprehending their responses to a question the OP didn't ask.

[Slave]

Looting a corpse, that you did not kill, without permission, is the very definition of ninja looting and it is against the rules of the server.

Done and done and done.

[Tricky Beverage]

As an avid lurker, I really like both Xasten and Hitchens. Thus far, Xasten has made the better supported argument (mostly because he's cared enough to type out his full argument). That said, I believe Hitchens is right.

Xasten, I like you and I appreciate your style, but I think you're wrong on this one. Here's why:

I think Xasten is trying to straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) us here (as opposed to reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)). To put this in context a little better, I have included a little more of the full quote from Rogean. Sorry the formatting is shitty; I guess I can't actually use the quote function because the thread is locked. I recommend following the link to Rogean's locked thread.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=489619&postcount=1


Quote:
raid disputes

Ninja looting is not a raid dispute. It is an individual basis. If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone, the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot. If they don't grant you permission to loot the corpse, you are violating an individual server rule by ninja looting.

Pathetic honestly that you are resorting to that after losing a kill and crying about it.

If you have any more questions about this you can send me a PM.

Now I will agree with Xasten on the content of Rogean's post -- Rogean seems to be saying exactly what Xasten is representing him to have said. Xasten and I disagree, however, on what Rogean is trying to say here.

It is painfully obvious to me that Rogean took a situation where we all (and yes, I'm including the original TR ninjas in this) have the same innate gut reaction to the situation: "What happened here is undeniably wrong."

Rogean had this reaction to the raid-ninja scenario and then did what many famous Supreme Court Justices have done since the US was founded: he created a fallacious argument to back up his (correct) gut reaction. In short, if what Rogean said in this thread is taken literally, then Rogean is wrong. Now yes, I'm aware Rogean makes the rules and we answer to him (hell, I'm thankful he lets me play on his server). But that doesn't change the fact that Rogean's logic in that locked thread is filled with holes. Apply Rogean's justification to the analogous scenario of training, and you'll immediately see the reasoning is nonsense:

"Because it can happen to individuals or groups, training is not a raid dispute. Therefore it falls into the exception to the non-intervention rules, and CSR will lay down the banhammer for those who train in VP."

Ridiculous, right?

To avoid cries of "GM INTERVENTION IN A NON-INTERVENTION ZONE!!!11" Rogean says that "ninja-looting" is NOT a raid dispute, but rather a violation on an individual basis. While "ninja-looting" certainly can be an individual/group issue, saying that raid "ninja-looting" is not a raid issue is clearly a cockamamie claim. Of course, the simple fact of the matter is that "non-intervention" is a misnomer for VP and always has been. There have been caveats and exceptions to VP's non-intervention rules (e.g., CSR will restore corpses that fully rot in VP) on p99 from day one. The p99 Dev Team should have just called VP what it is: a no-intervention-when-you-dolts-train-the-shit-out-of-each-other zone. But that is too hard to type and as soon as the words "non-intervention zone" were uttered by the Dev Team, trolls from both TR/IB and TMO immediately latched onto the phrase and began using it in their respective forum propaganda.

Because poor Rogean made a silly argument to justify his (just/correct) result, the ruling he appears to be making can be overextended far beyond what I believe Rogean intended -- which is exactly what's going on in this thread.

What's much more likely (than the literal reading of the above locked thread) is that Rogean wanted to prevent future abuses of the non-intervention zone rule in VP. "Ninja-looting" raid loot is such an obvious and egregious exploitation of VP's non-intervention rules that Rogean felt he needed (he didn't, by the way) some justification to intervene. It should also be noted that there's a valid (and distinct) reason to permit "ninja-looting" in the raid scene, but allow "ninja-looting" in the solo/group scenario: it takes longer to award loot in a guild than in a group (or solo). So while there's a valid GM interest/rationale to preventing raid "ninja-looting," there is no such interest/rationale in preventing "ninja-looting" at the solo/group level. Solo/group players should just figure it out before the timer expires, or lock down the corpse. This brings me to my next point...

I have been putting "ninja-looting" in quotes this whole time because for some reason what we call "ninja-looting" on p99 is not the same as what real ninja-looting was on live. I don't know how the term came into such misuse here. But (actual) ninja-looting is when a member of a group or raid loots an item he has not won (or been awarded) while the corpse loot-lock timer is still going (a la Xosire or Taluvill), usually followed by gating, logging, or AFKing. Ninja-looting does not include looting an item on a non-locked corpse. As far as I know, that's just how the corpse-lock mechanic is supposed to work. If you engage in that sort of "ninja-looting," you're not a ninja, you're just an inconsiderate player. The whole reason the corpse-lock mechanic was utilized on live was to keep GMs from having to deal with this kind of bullshit dispute. Had the EQ development team intended for a corpse to be "THE SOLE PROPARTY OF THE GRP WHO KILLD IT," then the corpse would just remain locked to those outside the group until it fully decayed, and anyone who wanted to loot on an alt would simply have to be added to the group to loot. However, that was never the intended mechanic. If you left the corpse unattended and the corpse-lock timer ran down on live, you were just a dummy. If even the group rule on p99 is that a corpse is "THE SOLE PROPARTY OF THE GRP WHO KILLD IT," then that server rule is definitely not classic and moreover, is just plain retarded(/counterintuitive). While I have heard of some situations on classic live where both (actual) ninja-looting and raid "ninja-looting" (post-timer) incurred CSR intervention, I don't recall any instances where solo/group "ninja-looting" (post-timer) were punished. Perhaps I recall this incorrectly, so feel free to cite any proof of instances where I might be wrong and I will amend accordingly. The point is, if you leave a corpse unattended past its loot-lock timer on p99, then you're a dummy, just like you would have been a dummy for the same behavior in classic. And you, dummy, aren't entitled to any CSR recourse for being a dummy; you should have taken precautions.

Rogean was clearly justified in his decision, and his decision is perfectly valid in the raiding context he made it in. But it is a mistake to read Rogean's argument literally, take it out of the original context, and then attempt to apply it to the distinct case of a completely unmanned (if only briefly) corpse. All of that said, I'd love to hear Rogean's opinion on this issue -- maybe I'm wrong about his actual intentions and he actually believes the ludicrous argument he posted in that thread to justify his (correct) decision based on his (correct) gut feeling.

Hitchens' dropped bag analogy is much more applicable to these facts than Xasten's raid "ninja-loot" analogy. In both the case of the dropped bags and the case of the unattended corpse, a player leaves his item (and yes, I agree that the loot on the corpse is his item) on the ground in the world without being logged into the server to watch it (if only for few seconds). When that happens, that player loses his claim to his item if someone else gets to it before he does. Either way, the second player ganking the item is clearly an inconsiderate jerk, but in my view, just because the first player is a dummy doesn't necessarily mean the ganker has violated any rules.

Finally, on a personal note, I don't approve of either taking someone's bags off of the ground or looting a corpse that doesn't belong to you. Under normal circumstances would never even consider engage in either of these questionable behaviors. Even so, just reading the original poster's whiny, self-serving, incoherent drivel makes me want to find out what camp he's doing and just so I can try to loot when the corpse timer runs down. Just sayin'.

Holy shit, sorry for the excessive length.

TLDR --

1. I think Hitchens is right, Xasten is wrong, and OP is a whiner.

2. Xasten makes a strong argument, and either way, this is an interesting debate.

3. VP isn't really a 100% non-intervention zone. Never has been.

4. I don't think Rogean meant the referenced thread to be applied as literally as Xasten applies it here.

5. If Rogean's post is the literal embodiment of the rule on p99, then the rule on p99 is pretty stupid.

6. Ninja-looting doesn't mean looting after the corpse-lock timer runs out.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I respect your reasoning, however my key point lies in Rogean making a specific statement in regards to the looting being an individual versus raid level offense.

I mentioned earlier that you could limit the context of his post to that of a raid situation, but I explained why I felt it was more generally applicable.

Ultimately, my main point is that here the specific rule will override the general. Even if there are holes in the general rules, it seems to me that Rogean's statement applies more specifically here than any other statement or rule. Even if the specific did not override the general, there is precedent value in what he said. In effect, he has overturned any conflicting rules.

I chuckled at your comment about the Supreme Court, but here it is not only Rogean's province to say what the law is, he also gets to say what it should be. It simply, for the previous reasons, seems clear to me that he intended the law be as I have stated it.

My argument becomes a strawman only if there is a difference between raids and groups (or the individual). I submit that there is no difference at all in the ownership of loot rights.

The definition of ninja looting on live, while possibly helpful for context, is ultimately not much use here I believe. Rogean defined it as taking anything you've not be assigned rights to (albeit within a raid context: See above that I do not differentiate on this context).

I rebut the dropped bag analogy because it has been explicitly recognized by the authorities as "at your own risk."

You do have a point in that we don't know what the law is or will be until an authority has clearly spoken on it. I believe that has occurred, but I recognize that there are contextual questions lingering for some thus dampening the "iron-cladness" of the statement.

BONUS: Amelinda ruled Perun's CT ninja looting as a raid offense. Rogean, as far as we know, did not rule on it. Did the Appeals Circuit of Amelinda rule correctly? Does the refusal to grant certiorari by the Supreme Court of Rogean indicate a new direction for P99 law? If the Supreme Court of Rogean endorses this view, what is the current state of the law outside the Amelinda Circuit? Whatever will the Ambrotos and Bort Jurisdictions do in light of this? Finally, what does Anthony "Nilbog" Kennedy have to say about all of this? STAY TUNED.

[Swish]

young camp lawyers

[Hitchens]

Was a pretty good thread, but I think it really boils down to just differences of opinion.

[Yanomamo]

Amelinda ruled Perun's CT ninja looting as a raid offense. Rogean, as far as we know, did not rule on it. Did the Appeals Circuit of Amelinda rule correctly? Does the refusal to grant certiorari by the Supreme Court of Rogean indicate a new direction for P99 law? If the Supreme Court of Rogean endorses this view, what is the current state of the law outside the Amelinda Circuit? Whatever will the Ambrotos and Bort Jurisdictions do in light of this? Finally, what does Anthony "Nilbog" Kennedy have to say about all of this? STAY TUNED.

This is hilarious.

young camp lawyers

[Tricky Beverage]

Yeah, Xasten, just about everything you just said sounds right to me. Admittedly, I also think that you're correct on what Rogean said: it looks to be pretty on point here, and it's all we have to go on. I only believe that he could not have meant the rule in his thread to apply literally and generally because the result would be nonsensical (e.g., the absurd VP training result I used as an illustration).

The only point you make that I take minor issue with is this:


I rebut the dropped bag analogy because it has been explicitly recognized by the authorities as "at your own risk."


The fact that authorities have recognized bag dropping as an "at your own risk" activity isn't a reason to reject it as a valid analogy to the present case. The fact that it is an "at your own risk" activity is precisely why I think the two situations are parallel.

It's interesting that Amelinda later ruled practically the exact same scenario Raid Interference. I wasn't aware of that. I'd be curious to see what Rogean has to say about that, but likely it's just semantics at this point (in which case, only you, me, and maaaayyyybe Hitchens care).

But yeah, at this point, Hitchens is right. I think you and I now disagree on only minor points of opinion. I have nothing to say yours is any less correct than mine.

[Ele]

I don't understand how people are equating dropping bags/items on the ground and looting a mob you didn't kill are the same thing, when they are completely different.

Scenario A:
Player takes his 60 mage main and a lowbie rogue to Ass/Sup for a mask. Mage camps it for a few hours and a second weight reduction bag drops. He leaves it on the body to log on his rogue to loot it. Player B shows up in the time it is taking Mage to switch characters. He sees the camp is empty and no one else in zone. Player B observes the bag on the corpse with the timer ticking. Player B loots it.

Player B has just ninja looted the corpse in accordance with the rule as he did not kill the mob and no one gave him the rights to loot it.

Scenario B:
Same facts, but this time Mage dropped the bag on the ground instead of leaving it on the mob's corpse and started logging over to his rogue alt to pick up the dropped bag. Player B rolls up and sees a bag on the ground and picks it up.

Player B did not ninja loot, but picked up an item on the ground. According to the rules this is fair game, albeit bad taste not to give it back if the rightful owner shows up.


These two situations while similar require completely different rules for application to the facts. One is a case of ninja looting (looting something on a mob you didn't kill or rightfully participated in killing or received permission to loot). The other is a case of picking up something on the ground, which has been stated as "at your own risk".



To the people claiming that once a mobs loot timer is lapsed (i.e. "the body is open"), you guys should sit in Trakanon's lair and see how far grabbing a tooth off an open body gets you on P99.

[Zereh]

Looting a corpse, that you did not kill, without permission, is the very definition of ninja looting and it is against the rules of the server.

Done and done and done.

^^ This!

Don't loot something if you didn't kill it, unless specifically told otherwise.

Quit looking for an excuse to try and justify shitty behavior.

[Scavrefamn]

You've given up your claim to the camp by logging out.

[Daldaen]

Claim to camp is given up. Not to an already killed mob. Mob corpses are yours always IMO. Especially when it isnt even close to rot, you shouldn't even touch a corpse unless you ask the person who killed it if you can.

[Handull]

So if this server ever implements the 'hand items to mobs, mob drops those items on death' mechanic, does that mean it would be a sanctioned 100% safe way to transfer items? Give to mob, kill mob, log alt to loot?

No, because the server can still crash and/or the login server goes down and/or your end of the internet craps out and you are out of luck. just find someone you can trust to xfer stuff, or do what i used to do and offer a random lowbie stranger plat and/or buffs after a successful xfer.

[sawin]

finding a bag on the ground:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/pokemonisrad/junk/ohapieceofcandy.png

finding an unlocked corpse on the ground:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/pokemonisrad/junk/ohapieceofcandy.png

[Scavrefamn]

/snip

One of the best posts I've read, on any forum.

Bravo.

[formallydickman]

young camp lawyers

[Slave]

- Please try and follow the “Play Nice Policy” rule set. Players need to use their common sense here and not do unethical things for personal gain. Respect camps, do not train others, don’t kill steal and don’t ninja loot. There will be consequences for these actions as this is strictly a PVE server.

First rule of the Server Rules thread. You're all quite welcome.

[Galaa]

1) Saw a corpse with uber loot in it
2) Look around, didnt see anyone claiming it
3) Loot and logout immediately.


Thats the right way to do it :D

[Kevlar]

So some asshat is permacamping some rare lore item with his lvl 60 main. He has an army of level 1 accounts/bazaar mules logged out there. Every time the item drops he puts it on a mule for later sale.

I honestly think allowing that would be absurd, but being that you can have as many accounts as you like on a free server it wouldn't be difficult to do, and would allow someone to stash an unlimited number of lore items and hold a camp forever.

Personally I think if you are doing the log out game anyone should be able to loot the corpse. FFA.

[Galaa]

Firstly, how is anyone gonna support the claim that he killed a mob?

Suppose I see a mob corpse on the ground, and a level 1 came to me and said "I killed that mob with my main". Am I supposed to just believe every single word he says and give him the loot?

I'll just laugh in his face and leave him with the loot in my bag. There's no proof to his bullcrap, not gonna believe a random lv 1 telling me stories.

I wont loot a corpse if i see someone killing it. But if no one is around and a random lv 1 shows up, im not giving him anything.

[vinx]

Firstly, how is anyone gonna support the claim that he killed a mob?

Suppose I see a mob corpse on the ground, and a level 1 came to me and said "I killed that mob with my main". Am I supposed to just believe every single word he says and give him the loot?

I'll just laugh in his face and leave him with the loot in my bag. There's no proof to his bullcrap, not gonna believe a random lv 1 telling me stories.
but you believe level 1's are actually playing around or even navigating thru the zone right??


Personally I think if you are doing the log out game anyone should be able to loot the corpse. FFA.
everyone has an opinion. thats why there are rules

[Galaa]

but you believe level 1's are actually playing around or even navigating thru the zone right??


everyone has an opinion. thats why there are rules

level 1 is just an example.

Lets say in South Karana a random lv 15 hunting in the area, saw a high level killing the AC and logging out (getting his alt, or maybe he already has the ring and cant loot it), so the level 15 camps at the corpse waiting for it to be public. Then he saw me running to the AC corpse, and he made up the story and says that he killed the AC with his main and is waiting to loot it now.

So its all a pack of lies, and Im supposed to believe him?

[vinx]

Lets say i make up this story

[Frieza_Prexus]

Evidence of a claim is an issue, which is why it was addressed early in this thread. The best suggestion is to communicate as best as you are able to anyone who might stumble across your kill within the timeframe it takes to log over.

In your example using the AC, two wrongs don't make a right. As has been shown earlier(subject to some dissent), if you do not kill a mob you do not own the rights.

Coming across someone who might be ninjalooting a corpse is not license for you to participate as well.

Even without evidence, the server logs will always vindicate the owner of the loot rights. Please note, this is mostly an academic discussion. The logistics of actually getting a GM to go log diving are an entirely different discussion.

[Galaa]

the best solution is, if u kill a mob, u loot it.

If you need to pass a no drop item to an alt, have a guildmate or a friend guard the corpse for u, until u login.

Simple as that. No confusion, no dispute, no need to bother the GM.

PS: vinx its pretty obvious the story is made up. I already said its an example.

[Danyelle]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[Frieza_Prexus]

the best solution is, if u kill a mob, u loot it.Of course. No one is disputing that there are other, far smarter, ways to handle it. The thread, however, is about a legal principle regarding ownership of loot rights and the lifespan of those rights.

[Yanomamo]

this conversation is retarded because you should be able to log onto your alt before the corpse can be looted by anyone else anyhow

[Frieza_Prexus]

I think a good number of us are here because we wanted to avoid doing anything substantive or productive today.

[Yanomamo]

An excellent point.

[HarrisonStillPosting]

I would petition them anyways for being a faggot, also, post names of the person doing it.

There is no reason not to out ninja looting pieces of shit.

[Destan]

Not sure why this is inciting so much debate. It's not really any different than passing loot to your alt by dropping a backpack of gear in a hidden spot, switching toons, and picking it up. Is it allowed if nobody interferes? Sure. Do you risk someone coming along and taking it just because they can? Absolutely. In that case, does it become a matter of risk versus reward? Yep.

If you are worried you'll have trouble then get a friend to hold the corpse for you while you switch characters. On live I'd done that numerous times at sensitive camps (like the AC in OOT) with a large line waiting behind me. It's generally easier than dealing with the mess that follows if you take the risk and it fails.

[vinx]

Of course. No one is disputing that there are other, far smarter, ways to handle it. The thread, however, is about a legal principle regarding ownership of loot rights and the lifespan of those rights.
And it is different, only the stupid would dare drop a bag of goodies then switch characters while others are in the room lol

[Wudan]

First of all - killing stuff for your alt is BS. You might as well start boxing... not much difference there...

Once you log off its free for all! Once the corpse is opened for loot it is FREE to loot! Everything else is BS. You wanna loot the corpse you have killed? Well fucken loot it in the time window you were give by devs. If you dont make it then dont be angry if someone else loots it. This is not Ninja looting! It is legal looting of corpse that the original "owner" did not loot in given time window.

I would not wait around the camp, If I knew someone is killing it to relog to an alt, evethough I think it sucks.
If I run through Ro and see an AC corpse and no1 around, Im gonna loot it.
If I find bags full of gear on the ground....I will not touch them.

[Haul]

no speakey no engrish

[Ele]

So some asshat is permacamping some rare lore item with his lvl 60 main. He has an army of level 1 accounts/bazaar mules logged out there. Every time the item drops he puts it on a mule for later sale.

I honestly think allowing that would be absurd, but being that you can have as many accounts as you like on a free server it wouldn't be difficult to do, and would allow someone to stash an unlimited number of lore items and hold a camp forever.

Personally I think if you are doing the log out game anyone should be able to loot the corpse. FFA.

Once he logs out to switch to the alt, he loses claim to the camp.

[Ele]

First of all - killing stuff for your alt is BS. You might as well start boxing... not much difference there...

Once you log off its free for all! Once the corpse is opened for loot it is FREE to loot! Everything else is BS. You wanna loot the corpse you have killed? Well fucken loot it in the time window you were give by devs. If you dont make it then dont be angry if someone else loots it. This is not Ninja looting! It is legal looting of corpse that the original "owner" did not loot in given time window.

I would not wait around the camp, If I knew someone is killing it to relog to an alt, evethough I think it sucks.
If I run through Ro and see an AC corpse and no1 around, Im gonna loot it.
If I find bags full of gear on the ground....I will not touch them.

Ask Perun how that worked out for him.

[Hitchens]

People seem to be looking at it from two different perspectives:

One perspective is from that of a non end-game player on non-end game drops.

One perspective is from that of an end-game player on end-game drops.

Both are correct depending on the situation.

[Wudan]

Ask Perun how that worked out for him.

why dont you tell me? I have no idea who Perun is ...

[Ele]

People seem to be looking at it from two different perspectives:

One perspective is from that of a non end-game player on non-end game drops.

One perspective is from that of an end-game player on end-game drops.

Both are correct depending on the situation.

No, it is not. Ninja looting is ninja looting whether it is a raid item or a mask of deception.

[Brut]

Flabbergasted at how some folks think there is somehow some form of justification for jabbing stuff off the corpse of a mob they have in no way contributed to killing.

I mean, no. That's just not how it works. No consent, no touchy.

[choster]

Just wow.

All the arguing about the inherent "right to be a dick" in the face of clear rules to the contrary is really staggering. Why not just leave it at, stealing is unethical and you shouldn't do it, and then the folks that still think they would do it can get back to strangling kittens or whatever else it is you people do in your spare time.

[Hitchens]

No, it is not. Ninja looting is ninja looting whether it is a raid item or a mask of deception.

It isn't a black and white issue to me. There are various shades of grey depending on circumstances.

I don't think the OP's scenario is an example of ninja looting. You do. So we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Hitchens]

Just wow.

All the arguing about the inherent "right to be a dick" in the face of clear rules to the contrary is really staggering. Why no just leave it at, stealing is unethical and you shouldn't do it, and then the folks that still think they would do it can get back to strangling kittens or whatever else it is you people do in your spare time.

I do think people should have the right to be a dick and I think people should have the right to face the consequences of being one as long as being a dick doesn't violate the rules. Since no GM has weighed in, no one knows for sure whether there was any clear violation of rules.

Ethics are subjective, as this thread shows. But this is becoming a philosophical discussion and those go nowhere.

[choster]

You are right about one thing Hitchens, no GMs have weighed in and made an exception to the existing rules that would permit this unethical behavior.

The existing rules are quite clear. Don't take something off of a corpse that you didn't kill unless you have been granted permission to loot that corpse by the person(s) that merited the kill.

[erog84]

Lol at all the people trying to justify ninja looting, and then when proven wrong try to change the argument of discussion. It's a dick move, and it is against the rules, either way, don't do it. For the example of someone perma camping something and getting all his alts an item(s) from that camp... once you log, you give up rights to the camp. Is it that hard to understand? Your camp is NOT the same thing as the mob you just killed.... I can't believe people can't understand this (I think it's more like they refuse to understand, so they can claim ignorance when they are ninja looting).

On a different note, back on live I remember a gm event spawned this black dragon that the best guild on my server took down. While they were discussing who the loot goes to, me and 2 buddies went up to the corpse and just knelt next to it (to make it appear we were looting). Oh boy did that get people upset !

[Brimacombe]

Being on the internet is like being in a car. People feel safer so you really get to see who people are inside.

-Brimacombe

[quido]

You guys are all fucking dorks. I'm ninjalooting your shit the first opportunity I get.

[Scavrefamn]

If there is an unlocked corpse on the ground and no one around, there is no rule preventing me or anyone else from looting it.

Unless it's a raid-type situation, there is absolutely zero claim to a corpse you've abandoned that became unlocked.
If the system was meant to lock corpses till rot, it would lock corpses till they rot.
End of discussion.

[Ele]

If there is an unlocked corpse on the ground and no one around, there is no rule preventing me or anyone else from looting it.

Unless it's a raid-type situation, there is absolutely zero claim to a corpse you've abandoned that became unlocked.
If the system was meant to lock corpses till rot, it would lock corpses till they rot.
End of discussion.

Game mechanics does not equal server rules.

If you did not kill it, it is not yours to loot without permission.

[Danyelle]

End of discussion.

No it's not.

The thread's discussion should have been ended at page 2. It's now going into halfway through page 13. Trust me...the discussion is not ended.

[choster]

If there is an unlocked corpse on the ground and no one around, there is no rule preventing me or anyone else from looting it.

Unless it's a raid-type situation, there is absolutely zero claim to a corpse you've abandoned that became unlocked.
If the system was meant to lock corpses till rot, it would lock corpses till they rot.
End of discussion.

If this argument were valid, it would also be permissible to 2box, ninja loot in groups, and train mobs to your hearts content.

[Scavrefamn]

If this argument were valid, it would also be permissible to 2box, ninja loot in groups, and train mobs to your hearts content.

http://i49.tinypic.com/65r6ue.jpg

[choster]

Lol Scavrefamn!

Your argument is "the game mechanices don't prevent it, therefor it is OK.". It is hardly a straw man argument to point out the other things that are also clearly against the stated server rules.

I get your argument, and I am 100% on board if we are playing mortal kombat at a standup arcade. I get the whole, if you aren't using every advantage, then you are playing to lose mentality. MMOs, particularly pve environs, are not the same thing. No one "wins" here.

[Zigfreed]

wow.. I wish you all played on red, and that I still played on red so I could slay you all for making this a 12 page topic.

Use common sense. Don't be a douchbag. Really all the rules you need.

The end.

[Galaa]

Why did EQ designed that corpse are private for 2+mins and then public for 5mins?

If the game is designed such that only those who killed the mob can loot the mob (some MMOs are designed this way), they would have made the corpse be only lootable to either the person who killed it, group and raid only.

But no, Verant designed the game such that the corpse can be looted by anyone after certain amount of time has passed. If they didnt planned for the game to be played this way, they wouldnt made it as such.

[Spudsy]

so that you could consensually pass no drop loot on corpses to players not in your party?

[Faisca]

The way I see it, the alt has the same looting rights any other player has. There is nothing linking an alt to a main in-game, so technically it can be regarded as just another player.

Having said that, I don’t think it’s nice to ninja loot from an alt, but then again, I don’t think permacamping is nice as well, so if these people got ninja looted I wouldn’t feel sorry for them.

[Tulvinous]

You're all p dumb to be honest.

[Atmas]

Why did EQ designed that corpse are private for 2+mins and then public for 5mins?

If the game is designed such that only those who killed the mob can loot the mob (some MMOs are designed this way), they would have made the corpse be only lootable to either the person who killed it, group and raid only.

But no, Verant designed the game such that the corpse can be looted by anyone after certain amount of time has passed. If they didnt planned for the game to be played this way, they wouldnt made it as such.

The Raid system wasn't added until what, Luclin or something? If they had made it so that only the kill group who got XP could loot all you would be see is some pimped out wizards and rogues in classic.