Sebilis Crypt Camp

[Derubael]

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

I really don't see why PlayerA is the asshole here. GroupB wants it both ways: they want to be able to claim the duke because its a separate camp, but they want to be able to claim the entire crypt because its one camp.

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)

[Derubael]

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

To the staff :

How many routinely contested camps are there? 50 or so, tops? Why don't you just rigidly define and name each camp in terms of exactly what it comprises, and lay down exact rules for each camp or portion thereof? Then publish it in a document and then tell everybody to stfu and follow the document. If they don't like the camp definitions or the rules, they can go run their own server.

It will be a pain to get it written up, but I bet you would win big over time by not having to deal with everybody's opinions as to what a camp is and whats allowed.

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

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

Derubael, you're best served by not turning this into quote-fest and spending some time thinking about your position here.

Imaginary scenarios, as fun as they are to use for strengthening your argument, are nowhere near the idiocy that I've witnessed or been subject to at this particular camp and never petitioned.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.

IMO a 'lets all play nice' ruleset is best, it just doesn't work that way in practice.

My apologies if my position wasn't clear - I don't have a horse in this race, except as it applies to making sure everyone has a good time, and our guides don't lose their minds trying to mediate camp disputes. Furthermore, I'd like to make a clearly defined ruleset that can be easily read and understood by the majority of players, and that our guides can point to in disputes and say "these are the rules"

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

I hope you can do the right thing and not arbitrarily change the rules 2 years later. One way or another, the rules regarding claiming Crypt are going to be an anomaly.

Again, I'm not against this, and I apologize if I made it sound that way. I ruled this camp today (and have been ruling this camp this way) because thats what the camp rules are. I'm not the only staff member who was doing it like this. and this discussion is no longer about whether I made the 'right' or 'wrong' call based on previous precedent.

[fadetree]

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

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can agree on and understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.

Well, thats fine, but you will get to continue to adjudicate 'camps' based on varying opinions. I'm not a guide or a member of the staff, make me one and I will write it.

My real point is that there IS no possible 'clearly defined ruleset that everyone can agree on' that will solve this problem. No amount of discussion will change that fact.

[baalzy]

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

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

Lets crowd source one then.

To begin lets list the highly 'contested' camps by zone and what rules to apply

Sebilis:
The Crypt this includes the 4 named in little rooms and the wandering named.
1) If the camp is completely unclaimed then any person(s) who enter may choose to take whichever room(s) they're capable of holding.
2) If the camp is partially claimed and another group wishes to be present, the original occupant(s) retain rights to the camps which they were already capable of clearing
3) If a group is capable of holding all 4 rooms plus the wanderer and was the first to arrive at an uncontested camp then no other player(s) may claim any portion of this camp.
4) If the original group is fully clearing the Crypt and also making pulls from the nearby emperor camp and a new group arrives, the original must choose which camp they wish to retain. Either the crypt or the emp.




I am mostly a solo'er and will freely admit I'm not really knowledgeable on all of the camps but I'll gladly compile a list from peoples replies and put it into another thread later to flesh out/discuss.

[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.