Sebilis Crypt Camp

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

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

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

[Nirgon]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

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

[Spitty]

This is favoritism.

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

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

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

That's absolutely wrong.

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

Guaranteed.

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

[quido]

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

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

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

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by guido

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

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

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

[quido]

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

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

[Wrench]

what jeremy is saying makes sense to me

[Coolname]

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

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