Found my first a-hole on the Blue Server

[loramin]

So that's a different scenario: in dungeon zones you can claim multiple mobs in very close proximity as a camp. In this case, it sounds like the group did have the claim to the camp, because they had killed a (different) mob previously.

However, I (greatly) sympathize with your point that it's impossible to know what counts as a camp sometime, and the staff does change their opinions from case to case. I also sympathize with the staff: having to consult a rules bible every time they interact with players would make their (volunteer) lives much harder.

My "solution" has been to put a lot of time and effort into https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rulings. It doesn't yet have a ruling for Vilefang, but if you can post whatever the GM told you (and when) I can add it, and it will at least help educate future players.

[druidbob]

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

So that's a different scenario: in dungeon zones you can claim multiple mobs in very close proximity as a camp. In this case, it sounds like the group did have the claim to the camp, because they had killed a (different) mob previously.

However, I (greatly) sympathize with your point that it's impossible to know what counts as a camp sometime, and the staff does change their opinions from case to case. I also sympathize with the staff: having to consult a rules bible every time they interact with players would make their (volunteer) lives much harder.

My "solution" has been to put a lot of time and effort into https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rulings. It doesn't yet have a ruling for Vilefang, but if you can post whatever the GM told you (and when) I can add it, and it will at least help educate future players.

aa

But then wouldn't that be the same case here? The Warrens is a dungeon, assuming OP was killing kobolds in the surrounding area would he not have the same claim to the king as that group had to VF?

[loramin]

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

aa

But then wouldn't that be the same case here? The Warrens is a dungeon, assuming OP was killing kobolds in the surrounding area would he not have the same claim to the king as that group had to VF?

OP would have to be killing mobs from that "camp". If they were, then yes, but just killing any nearby kobolds wouldn't qualify (and AFAIK there's been no official GM ruling of what the "king" camp is, so I would imagine it's only mobs immediately next to him, as they have to be in agro range).

[shovelquest]

Some of you guys still think we can make all this work "in real life"?

lol

[loramin]

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

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

In the PnP, please show how me where it says that sitting down in front of a spawn point (that you didn't kill) grants you exclusive ownership of the next spawn at that point.

[sammoHung]

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

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

After some digging - Loramin is indeed correct. The first player lost their camp after leaving the zone, making in unclaimed.

From: https://wiki.project1999.com/Play_Ni...e.2FLose_Camps

Losing Camps
Players lose camps when any of the following occurs:
...
The player leaves the zone, dies, or similarly "reloads"

But, that doesn't mean just sitting at the spawn gives the second player the camp:

From: https://wiki.project1999.com/Play_Ni...Unclaimed_Camp

You can claim an unclaimed camp by being the first to engage a mob at that camp.

[cd288]

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

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

Of course they're not what I imagine them to be. They're what the staff has repeatedly ruled they are in live situations. At that point, it doesn't matter what the PnP says if the staff consistently rules in a somewhat different manner.

Your argument is like saying "well this law uses these words, and the Supreme Court has ruled this is what words mean, but that doesn't matter and we should just ignore that."

The argument that you should be making is that the PnP be updated to be in line with how the staff treats the situations in real time. This has been an issue plaguing P99 in the past. The staff begins ruling something a certain way consistently, but it's technically in conflict with the plain language of the PnP. This is one of those situations where a player would be wise to not abide strictly by the language of the PnP and assume they can just come in and FTE the camp...the staff have suspended people for that in the past.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course they're not what I imagine them to be. They're what the staff has repeatedly ruled they are in live situations. At that point, it doesn't matter what the PnP says if the staff consistently rules in a somewhat different manner.

Your argument is like saying "well this law uses these words, and the Supreme Court has ruled this is what words mean, but that doesn't matter and we should just ignore that."

The argument that you should be making is that the PnP be updated to be in line with how the staff treats the situations in real time. This has been an issue plaguing P99 in the past. The staff begins ruling something a certain way consistently, but it's technically in conflict with the plain language of the PnP. This is one of those situations where a player would be wise to not abide strictly by the language of the PnP and assume they can just come in and FTE the camp...the staff have suspended people for that in the past.

My argument is that the people enforcing the rules generally adhere to the posted rules (ie. the PnP).

When a single poster reports "but my friend's mother's uncle's cousin got a different ruling one time at band camp", it doesn't change my opinion.

[cd288]

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

My argument is that the people enforcing the rules generally adhere to the posted rules (ie. the PnP).

When a single poster reports "but my friend's mother's uncle's cousin got a different ruling one time at band camp", it doesn't change my opinion.

They don't on this issue though? Anyone who has played on this server for years knows that, which is why I'm so surprised you're debating this...or maybe you haven't played in a long time and are just reading the forums.

At any rate, if that's your opinion you're welcome to have it. But anyone reading this thread would be wise to ignore it and expect the staff to rule that whoever is sitting at the camp has claimed the camp if the prior person has left the zone or hasn't left the zone but returned to the camp and cleared spawns within a reasonable period of time of them spawning. Which is the way staff have ruled for years regardless of what the PnP on the Wiki says.

[sammoHung]

All of that being said: Fuckin communicate, people.

If I was at the spawn point and nobody was there - but then someone showed up:

Me: Hey, were you camping this?
Them: Yes
Me: Ok, have a great day - good luck!

It's that damn simple. The fuckin pixels aren't going anywhere. King respawns every 48 minutes until the server shuts down.