Sebilis Crypt Camp

[Derubael]

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

Why would you say something like this? Sounds to me like it's saying "if you say something we don't like, we'll delete it." Solid way to encourage feedback.

Because of stupid posts like this shitting up the discussion. Deleted.

[Wrench]

what jeremy is saying makes sense to me

[quido]

I'm not sure why my last post was deleted.

I think a decent parallel would be the King/Tactician camp in Guk. The way I see it, Crypt like King/Tact is a single camp. But are we absolutely required to clear the whole thing to lay claim to part of it? Imo, no. It's relatively easy to solo just the Froglok King and one roamer or just the Tactician and leave the rest up. Does this mean that someone couldn't come along and start killing the rest of it? It shouldn't, but it also shouldn't mean that the person killing the Froglok King should be forced to give it up just because he chooses not to bother with the rest.

I think it goes without dispute that the Crypt (4 room nameds + roamer named) is a single camp. The question here is whether people are or aren't able to claim a portion of a "camp." I don't see why the anomaly allowing people to claim 5 nameds without having to have a presence at each spawn wouldn't apply to someone only wanting to take one or two of those nameds, especially when they were there first without contest.

[Orruar]

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

Here's the issue.

You can either call the "Crypt" (notice that players call it the 'Crypt Camp', not the heiro camp or the duke camp) one camp comprised of those four mobs, in which case you would need to demonstrate your ability to hold all four spawns at the same time. Or you can call it four separate camps, which may seem like a good idea at first, but let me give you an example of something I have seen happen on multiple occasions (and been called in to mediate this nightmare fuck of a situation):

Obviously you could also just call it some subset of the 4. Apparently they put a special rule in place for this camp that you can claim all 4 rooms without maintaining physical presence in all 4 simultaneously. It was a special rule to get around an already pretty dumb rule, but it's there. So is it not obvious that the solution here is to allow a person to camp 1 or 2 or 3 of those rooms and if someone else wants to move in, they can take whatever the first person isn't clearing? Is this really a difficult idea to grapple with?

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

PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, assholeA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".

See above. Crypt is special. So groupB moving in can't just pull the lawyer card and claim duke. They can take whatever playerA is not camping. And once they have established the rest of the crypt camp, by clearing the mobs playerA was not clearing, playerA has no right to contest the mobs they were not previously camping. This isn't rocket surgery.

And I like how it went from playerA to assholeA. Your bias in this situation is showing. You clearly felt you have been wronged in this situation before and now are trying to punish people who don't play as you would like them to.

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

Keep in mind that the common sense way to deal with this is to say "stop being dumb and let them clear the other three rooms", but there are so many rule lawyers on this server, and everyone wants to call foul when a guide/gm comes in and doesn't follow the rules laid out in the forums. The last thing our Guides need is more headaches.

Yes, I suspect that people would be upset when rules are laid out in the forums and a guide doesn't follow them. I also suspect people would be upset when a police officer showed up to their house and didn't follow the laws written down in the books. I don't even understand your point here. You aren't going to make everyone happy. So why not just follow the rules that are already in place instead of creating some new rule for this situation?

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

That being said, if we were to make a new rule allowing the splitting of camps prior to another group and/or person coming in to claim the other portions of the camp, how do we define that? Can you just clear ONE spawn, or are you allowed to hold multiple if you were holding them before? Does this apply to ALL camps, or just certain camps? For example, if I'm sitting at the Mistmoore pond killing just one of the little two spawns in the corner, and a full group comes in and wants to kill those mobs, can I sit there and continue to kill those two mobs while they clear everything else? What happens if in the process of killing those two mobs I aggro other nearby mobs from the camp the other group is clearing around me? Am I allowed to kill those mobs to defend myself, or do I need to leave them for the group and let them kill me because I'm standing in the middle of a camp killing two mobs while the group kills the rest?

Very simple. Whatever a person was clearing prior to a group moving is considered their camp. We don't have any pre-defined camps anyway. If a person wants to clear just the mobs inside the efreeti room and leave the rest of the trash up, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If another group comes in and starts doing the efreeti trash for xp, why shouldn't they both be happy in this situation? And if the person camping efreeti accidentally agros one of the mobs that belongs to the group, they can take it over to the group and offer it to them. Is it really that hard to apply common sense to this situation?

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

If it DOESNT apply to all 'camps' how do we define which camps it DOES apply to?

You guys see how complicated this is now? Help me out, I'm legitimately asking the community for input here.

Well apparently this special rule about camps only applies to the crypt. It would be nice if we just defined all camps as being "whatever the person/group is clearing, regardless of how many rooms they are clearing", but we don't have that. So instead we have this crazy "sit in a room to claim the spawns within, except for crypt" thing. It's not perfect, but what you're trying to do with crypt only pushes things the opposite direction from where they should go. If you get to decide what constitutes a full camp and require people to clear the full camp to get any part of it, you're only increasing the amount of GM intervention necessary. Do you understand this point?

[Teppler]

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

According to the server rules, the guide in your case ruled "correctly", while this Derubiel guy is just making shit up here. If you want to get technical on the rules, even a crypt group can lose a room if someone decides to walk in and sit in just one room and maintain presence there. I'm not saying the current server rules are right, but Derubiel is making a bad situation even worse. If this ruling stands, then they will need to end up defining every single camp in the game. GM defining specific camps is just plain retarded. I guess the other option is to come up with some arbitrary camp definition like "every mob within X distance or Y rooms of your group's stationary camping spot".

It sounds like keeping a presence right on the spawn point is the only consistent way to do this.

I don't really see what makes the Crypt different from HS North where the Crypt gets special rules. Ruling for one should be the same ruling for the other.

[Coolname]

simple add a rule you can't claim anything as a solo player, problem solved.

That would certainly help open up frenzy for "real" groups

[Derubael]

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

I'm not sure why my last post was deleted.

I think a decent parallel would be the King/Tactician camp in Guk. The way I see it, Crypt like King/Tact is a single camp. But are we absolutely required to clear the whole thing to lay claim to part of it? Imo, no. It's relatively easy to solo just the Froglok King and one roamer or just the Tactician and leave the rest up. Does this mean that someone couldn't come along and start killing the rest of it? It shouldn't, but it also shouldn't mean that the person killing the Froglok King should be forced to give it up just because he chooses not to bother with the rest.

Agreed, and you shouldn't have to kill all the extra spawns to hold claim to the camp as long as you're killing the main attraction (in your example, the king and the tactician, or in the crypt example, the four named spawns) and keeping them clear.

Originally Posted by guido

I think it goes without dispute that the Crypt (4 room nameds + roamer named) is a single camp. The question here is whether people are or aren't able to claim a portion of a "camp."

Which camps can you only claim a portion of? When does this apply? Does it apply to straight XP camps as well as high value item camps? As it's defined currently in the rules we have posted (which, i should add, we can mediate at our discretion, but i'd rather have something clearly defined that the players can follow, rather than being called in every 5 minutes to mediate camp disputes), this kind of thing isn't allowed because the crypt is 1 camp and you must demonstrate and exercise your ability to hold the camp in order to claim it.

[Splorf22]

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

PlayerA is sitting camping the heiro/duke, groupB comes in and wants to take duke, and so they claim that room by the camp rules. groupB also wants to go camp the other two rooms because its a full group and they don't want to sit in that one room. playerA takes that opportunity to call camp rules and demand that they stay in that one rooms spawn, because they can't hold multiple camps. Because the SECOND that group goes to clear those other two rooms, assholeA who was there before is going to go "well i want to contest the rare spawn, you can't hold multiple camps, so pick one and stick with it".

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.

[Spitty]

This is favoritism.

You're favoring people and organizations that can essentially "rule-lawyer" a camper out of their camp. All the need to do is call in a couple people to make it look like the other spawns are being cleared, and I'm GM-booted out of a camp I have solid claim over.

If I, as a solo shaman, am sitting in a room on this server with the door closed and a single 23-minute spawn and I'm legitimately and successfully clearing that spawn every time it re-pops, I should be able to expect that I can maintain ownership of that camp. This is, and has been, a guaranteed scenario on this server many times over in many different situations.

You cannot enact a ruling that allows someone to override that by sheer numbers, and you cannot do that to a specific camp. You're making it a requirement now that a crypt camper be part of a guild or have a batphone-like ability to call in reinforcements to protect a completely legitimate camp.

That's absolutely wrong.

It doesn't matter if you're afraid of "rule lawyers". It doesn't matter that you think there's going to be more service instances where you need to show up. I can guarantee 100% that you'll see more instances and more intense situations if you try enforcing your ruling.

Guaranteed.

[Orruar]

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

It sounds like keeping a presence right on the spawn point is the only consistent way to do this.

I don't really see what makes the Crypt different from HS North where the Crypt gets special rules. Ruling for one should be the same ruling for the other.

Personally, I'd prefer if we had a "you clear it, it's yours" rule. The "one room" rule is in fact counterproductive when it comes to encouraging grouping. When you limit the amount of mobs any group can keep as part of their camp, you only encourage smaller group sizes. If you take a full group to lguk and can clear most of dead side, you may just end up losing 2/3 of your camp to rules lawyers. So why not just solo/duo a camp instead.

They put the special crypt rule in because it exposed the complete absurdity of the "one room" rule. It was really just a bandaid.