Mob Camping Rules

[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.

[Atmas]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[Yanomamo]

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

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.

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

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:

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

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.