Found my first a-hole on the Blue Server

[druidbob]

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

Had the other group killed any of the mobs at that camp?

The mob in question was vilefang, the other group was down at the water killing rats and snakes, our puller ran down and sniped VF on spawn because we were under the impression that it was an fte mob, they petition and the GM rules that it was a camp and because they had "an established presence" at the water that it was their camp. Our chipped fang gets deleted and we eat a 5 day. And no they did not kill the previous VF.

[sammoHung]

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

Disputes like this happened to me maybe once/twice a month back during my heavier playtimes.

I hate hate hate the gaslighting attempt by the wizard. Scum person, probably miserable life outside of EQ.

[loramin]

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

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

Disputes like this happened to me maybe once/twice a month back during my heavier playtimes.

I hate hate hate the gaslighting attempt by the wizard. Scum person, probably miserable life outside of EQ.

The Wizard literally offered to give the camp to the guy, when he had no claim to it. How is that gaslighting?

[sammoHung]

You need to be in the same zone, and even still - if the camp becomes contested - you need to return to the camp and maintain a presence.

[loramin]

Right, neither one of them had killed the mob and stayed in zone for the respawn. Ergo, no one was camping that mob: it was (like any other mob) a "First to Engage" mob ... and the Wizard engaged first.

[sammoHung]

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

Right, neither one of them had killed the mob and stayed in zone for the respawn. Ergo, no one was camping that mob: it was (like any other mob) a "First to Engage" mob ... and the Wizard engaged first.

Good lord I'm glad I stopped playing this game. I'm almost done forumquesting, too.

Following this logic: If I ran around porting between spawns that I had exact timers on - I could beat all the noobs out of their measley camps by claiming "well no one was camping it so it was FTE"

That type of shit is why people don't stick around. Because sweatlords act shitty and then people defend them by invoking the loopholes in the rules of the server.

[loramin]

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

Good lord I'm glad I stopped playing this game. I'm almost done forumquesting, too.

Following this logic: If I ran around porting between spawns that I had exact timers on - I could beat all the noobs out of their measley camps by claiming "well no one was camping it so it was FTE"

Yes, exactly, you could do that. But in reality no one does that (except maybe on Red), because there aren't lots of highly desirable camps just sitting around open.

The rules are all about sharing. If you want to go kill King Crush, then port and kill Chief Goonda in West Karana, then gate up to Everfrost to kill Karg IceBear, the game lets you. Why wouldn't it? No one else wants those mobs (if they did, you couldn't do what I just described), so why not let anyone kill them?

But as soon as two people want the same spawn, we have rules to handle that. The Wizard in this scenario followed all those rules, and the OP is calling him an asshole for following those rules.

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

That type of shit is why people don't stick around. Because sweatlords act shitty and then people defend them by invoking the loopholes in the rules of the server.

First off, the rules are the way they are because we have volunteer-only GMs, not because the staff is malicious.

Second, you're acting like this isn't about two humans playing a shared game, and both wanting some resource in the game ... but that's all it is. The game itself has rules about how to handle such disputes, but the OP doesn't agree with those rules, and thinks he (as a person) deserves this virtual resource more than another human, in spite of those rules. That's all that's going on here.

[shovelquest]

Isn't there something about, "setting up and establishing" the camp...

[loramin]

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

Isn't there something about, "setting up and establishing" the camp...

Not that I know of.

You kill mob X and you are guaranteed a camp claim on all respawns of X ... until you leave the zone, die, camp, or fail to kill the respawns when they spawn. It's pretty simple (at least for one mob; camping multiple mobs adds a bit of complexity).

[cd288]

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

Not that I know of.

You kill mob X and you are guaranteed a camp claim on all respawns of X ... until you leave the zone, die, camp, or fail to kill the respawns when they spawn. It's pretty simple (at least for one mob; camping multiple mobs adds a bit of complexity).

I'm surprised that Loramin of all people seems to not understand the rule.

In this scenario, the Wizard seems to have killed the prior spawn and logged off. OP arrived and waited for the next spawn. That is OP's camp. If the spawn occurs and OP sits there for 10 minutes jot engaging it, THEN someone can engage it. But it is OP's camp until then.