Drama

[soup]

Also, as for the "arbitrary time duration" to not exceed, that's easy. If shit spawns faster than you can kill it, you aren't doing it in a timely manner.

[Agaron]

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

It sounds like you don't even know WHY he zoned rofl

The enchanter doesn't zone because he cant hold the camp or needs to get some mob off him or whatever, it's because his charmed pet is low HP and by zoning it regens rapidly to full. It has nothing to do with an inability to hold the camp. It's only abouth efficiency. He could have sat there letting the mob slowly regen up while sitting at the camp, but that would take much longer, and he has people waiting in line who made a deal for the camp after him, so speeding it up helps everyone, right? Oh, guess not, because people are douche bags and think zoning is like going to another planet or something.

As far as the zoning argument, say I am camping Gynok in Befallen. Say I have just killed the PH a couple minutes ago, and the PH has 15 minutes until it respawns. Say someone asks if I can step outside to SOW them real quick. Would you be like "LOL YOU ZONED NOT YOUR CAMP ANYMORE!"?

Right. If you come to a camp, and any of the targets are down, dmged, or engaged, and you don't see someone, you can't assume they're not camping. They could be invis, they could be kiting, they could be fighting it out of view, or even zoning. You don't know. If the camp is fully spawned, because entire group wiped, and you clear it without anyone communicating from get go, or someone popping out of invis to hold camp, then you're sol. Two different things.

[Alawen Everywhere]

If you dig back in time to my very first post on this server, I was camping Grimrot for my cleric. I left to port a guildy and ran back. When I got back, three lowbies WHO HAD SEEN ME CAMPING GRIMROT FOR HOURS were sitting and prepping for the pull. They hadn't killed a single skeleton yet. According to server rules, the camp was theirs and I let them take it.

All of this seems very basic to me. If you're not there, it's not your camp. Yes, if you zone out of camping Gynok, you lost your camp. I was not there, I lost my camp.

Incidentally, the group I let take Grimrot then flamed me anyway.

[soup]

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

If you dig back in time to my very first post on this server, I was camping Grimrot for my cleric. I left to port a guildy and ran back. When I got back, three lowbies WHO HAD SEEN ME CAMPING GRIMROT FOR HOURS were sitting and prepping for the pull. They hadn't killed a single skeleton yet. According to server rules, the camp was theirs and I let them take it.

All of this seems very basic to me. If you're not there, it's not your camp. Yes, if you zone out of camping Gynok, you lost your camp. I was not there, I lost my camp.

Incidentally, the group I let take Grimrot then flamed me anyway.

I don't understand why the details of how or where or methods or if you zone or not is relevant if you're there to engage the mob when it spawns or are in the process of clearing the camp.

All of this seems very basic to me. If the person is killing the mob when it spawns then it's not your camp. Don't worry about the details of if they run xxx distance away or whatever other bullshit. It's their camp and how they do it should be of zero concern to you.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I like how people here are making up camping rules to suit them and this situation when the camping rules are already clearly posted for all to read and understand. Just because you don't like one particular rule, or it doesn't work for your class or playstyle or standards of efficiency doesn't mean you can selectively choose to ignore it.

I am not disagreeing the enchanter had the camp at the time the group came back from CR. Per the rules that currently exist to handle this kind of crap, yes... the original group had not retained a presence at the camp, nor did they demonstrate the ability to hold the camp since they wiped. The group knew this based on the first screenshot of the discussion. That's why Dravyen backed down. They knew they did not hold rights to the camp.

However, the enchanter zoned during the course of clearing the camp. At the moment he did this, I don't care how much you want to lawyer this up with hypothetical situations and kiting and bullshit like that, he did not retain a presence IN THE ZONE, much less the camp. For those of you that disagree, please draw me some fucking diagrams or flowcharts proving that you can be outside the zone and "retaining a presence at the camp" in a zone you are not in. You can't. Because it's not fucking possible. The enchanter lost rights to the camp at this point, and therefore the deal/ultimatum was void because the camp became the groups.

Why the enchanter zoned is not my concern. It was stated that the pet was at 5% health. If the enchanter cannot hold the camp with a pet at 5% health, then he demonstrates an inability to hold the camp. You're absolutely right... it was a matter of efficiency. More so, a matter of time. If the enchanter had retained presence at the camp as required by the server rules to continue to have rights at the camp, the enchanter would have had several options I can think of off the top of my head:

a) Wait for the pet to regain HP naturally, which may or may not have been before respawn. Tough luck. If you cannot clear the camp before shit starts respawning so you can get to the PH/named, that's your problem. Maybe you should group up and stop solo farming stuff you can't clear out the respawn on while retaining a presence at the camp. Should have rolled a necro or mage.

b) Kill the pet, charm a new one. Probably a little risky in this situation, but if you want to maintain rights to the camp, this is where as a solo caster, you must demonstrate your ability to hold the camp.

c) Mez/memblur so that it regains HP faster, then re-charm. Same as (b).

d) Zone out to break charm and let the mob regain HP faster, then zone back in and re-charm. This, ironically enough, is the only one of the four options I presented (I'm sure there are more) that does not retain a presence at the camp and loses his rights to the camp per the server rules. If the OP had done B or C, he would have maintained rights to the camp and the other group would not have been able to "legally" claim the camp, and this post wouldn't even exist right now.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

I don't understand why the details of how or where or methods or if you zone or not is relevant if you're there to engage the mob when it spawns or are in the process of clearing the camp.

Let me help you understand:

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp.

4. In order to hold a camp, the player or group must be able to demonstrate the ability to hold the camp without further help.

Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.

[soup]

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

I like how people here are making up camping rules to suit them and this situation when the camping rules are already clearly posted for all to read and understand. Just because you don't like one particular rule, or it doesn't work for your class or playstyle or standards of efficiency doesn't mean you can selectively choose to ignore it.

I am not disagreeing the enchanter had the camp at the time the group came back from CR. Per the rules that currently exist to handle this kind of crap, yes... the original group had not retained a presence at the camp, nor did they demonstrate the ability to hold the camp since they wiped. The group knew this based on the first screenshot of the discussion. That's why Dravyen backed down. They knew they did not hold rights to the camp.

However, the enchanter zoned during the course of clearing the camp. At the moment he did this, I don't care how much you want to lawyer this up with hypothetical situations and kiting and bullshit like that, he did not retain a presence IN THE ZONE, much less the camp. For those of you that disagree, please draw me some fucking diagrams or flowcharts proving that you can be outside the zone and "retaining a presence at the camp" in a zone you are not in. You can't. Because it's not fucking possible. The enchanter lost rights to the camp at this point, and therefore the deal/ultimatum was void because the camp became the groups.

Why the enchanter zoned is not my concern. It was stated that the pet was at 5% health. If the enchanter cannot hold the camp with a pet at 5% health, then he demonstrates an inability to hold the camp. You're absolutely right... it was a matter of efficiency. More so, a matter of time. If the enchanter had retained presence at the camp as required by the server rules to continue to have rights at the camp, the enchanter would have had several options I can think of off the top of my head:

a) Wait for the pet to regain HP naturally, which may or may not have been before respawn. Tough luck. If you cannot clear the camp before shit starts respawning so you can get to the PH/named, that's your problem. Maybe you should group up and stop solo farming stuff you can't clear out the respawn on while retaining a presence at the camp. Should have rolled a necro or mage.

b) Kill the pet, charm a new one. Probably a little risky in this situation, but if you want to maintain rights to the camp, this is where as a solo caster, you must demonstrate your ability to hold the camp.

c) Mez/memblur so that it regains HP faster, then re-charm. Same as (b).

d) Zone out to break charm and let the mob regain HP faster, then zone back in and re-charm. This, ironically enough, is the only one of the four options I presented (I'm sure there are more) that does not retain a presence at the camp and loses his rights to the camp per the server rules. If the OP had done B or C, he would have maintained rights to the camp and the other group would not have been able to "legally" claim the camp, and this post wouldn't even exist right now.

And as I've said before and I will say again, just because according to server rules zoning out for 20 seconds then back in means the camp is a FFA and anyone can claim it doesn't mean you aren't a grade A douche bag for deciding to do so, ESPECIALLY if you had just made a deal to let someone do a round then hand the camp over. Making a deal to let them solo it then negating it because they zone out for 20 seconds is completely retarded.

Back to the Gynok example. If I zone out to SoW myself and you choose to take that 30 seconds to take the camp from me, it doesn't matter if the server rules say you are allowed to do that, you're still a 100% douche bag for trying to do so.

Why do people here seem to have absolutely no concept of common sense or decency? It's always just about trying to find any kind of way to twist the server rules to their benefit even if it means shitting on other players in the process. I'm sure someone will respond to this with something like "LOL what about when the enchanter gave them an ultimatum to allow one or camp it all day?!?!" when all he did was say "well, according to the rules, I COULD do this, but I'm not going to, I'll just kill one more then leave, sound fair?" which was met with a "Yes, that sounds fair, we agree to this deal"

I'm really starting to question this supposed maturity and camaraderie EQ players are supposed to have over the fabled WoW kiddies everyone always bitches about.

[soup]

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

Let me help you understand:





Step 1: Group wipes, enchanter invokes rule 1 & 4 to claim the camp.

Step 2: Cut a hole in a box.

Step 3: Camp belongs to enchanter. No one is disputing this, even the group leader.

Step 4: Put your junk in that box.

Step 5: Enchanter zones, group invokes rule 1 to claim the camp, just as was done to them.

(Note: rule 1 does not have an arbitrary time limit that you are now "making up" to suit your argument here. They could also invoke rule 4, but we've decided we'll even give the OP benefit of the doubt and assume he could have demonstrated the ability to hold the camp had he killed the pet and re-charmed, or mez/memblurred the pet, waited for the mob to regain HP, and re-charmed. However, in this case, rule 1 was enough for the group to claim the camp.)

Step 6: Make her open the box.

Step 7: Camp belongs to group. "Deal" made to give him 1 PH/spawn is now void.

Enchanter didn't invoke shit. He said he could be a dick and do xxxxx, but instead he'll just kill one more and leave if that is agreed to be fair, which it was.

[soup]

The only time he was even close to "invoking rules" was when Slappie was bitching at him after a deal was made.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Enchanter didn't invoke shit. He said he could be a dick and do xxxxx, but instead he'll just kill one more and leave if that is agreed to be fair, which it was.

Yup, during the time he had rights to the camp. Those rights expired when he zoned, per rule 1. Unless you can show how someone not in a zone can simultaneously retain a presence at a camp in that zone. Which you can't.

Whether you agree with those rules is irrelevant to how they are applied to determine who had the rights to the camp at each point in this situation we're discussing.