Sebilis Crypt Camp

[Ele]

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

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

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

[fadetree]

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

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

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

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

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

[Iliilliill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are all 4 crypt spawns the main attraction? if all PlayerA wants is two named in the area that's his main attraction, and if uncontested when he gets there IMO he should be free to kill the two.

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

Is the fun/pixels of 1 person less important than that of a group?

I found this last post from the Camps Defined thread relevant:

Originally Posted by Uthgaard

Camping a mob is a privelege, not a right. If someone wants the privelege of having sole claim to a mob, they have to make the sacrifice of whatever else they could be doing with themselves. Claim to a camp is a considerable advantage, it comes with a cost. Choose wisely.

If GroupB wanted to lawyer a mob away from someone they are sacrificing their time and effort to do so. Leaving to kill another mob would be a forfeit of that effort to control the first mob, and if they expected to return to the first uncontested they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.


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

[Vandy]

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

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

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

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

[Derubael]

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

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

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

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

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

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

thx guys [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Splorf22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all more or less common sense to me.

[Thulack]

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

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

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

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

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

This is all more or less common sense to me.

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

[Nastinate]

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

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

agreed

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

[fadetree]

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

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

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

[CodyF86]

I have to be honest I had to read through this thread 4 times to make sure
I half-way understood what the actual issue was then I reread it a 5th
time when I realized that I was agreeing with Jeremy... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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

Aaradin
The A-Team