Beware the gnome Whukes

[t0lkien]

This is still nonsense, GM approval or no (and really, they can only adjudicate based on their logs; and it's their server so it is what it is).

Moral of the story: never assume Whukes is playing fair. That's a pretty expensive earring IMO.

[Ambrotos]

If you look at the log times you can see a difference of 12 seconds.

Engaged: Sun Jun 30, 2013; 07:51:30

**[Sun Jun 30 07:51:16 2013] You begin casting Enstill.
[Sun Jun 30 07:51:18 2013] Hadden says, 'Ah.. Though you appear so puny, I'm sure your flesh will make good bait!'
[Sun Jun 30 07:51:18 2013] Hadden's feet adhere to the ground.

Kat did attack but it was afterwards 8ish seconds after the other guy engaged. He attacked ~23 seconds after it spawned.

Can he lose the camp while not being there while it spawns? It all depends and this is the worst camp to deal with. You have a npc with less than 1200 hps mid lvl 20s can kill quickly.

If you read what he says, he was looking away when it spawned. Maybe he looked at the screen due to spells going off, or what not. One person was there ready, the other not.

Shitty? Very. Toss up and can anything be done? No. The only thing I see is one person attacking after the other. He admitted he wasn't paying attention and just attacked. So what people are asking is does a semi afk person get the camp after 23ish seconds before he engaged after a spawn?

It wasn't just 6 seconds. It was from when the npc spawned, to his engaged time and that was 23 seconds. Big difference than 6 seconds.

[LiQuid]

If this ruling goes in favor of Whukes my new blanket policy for all camps is to hand them off to others while I go get some sleep then come back and race them for FTE to claim I have the camp back. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

If this ruling goes in favor of Whukes my new blanket policy for all camps is to hand them off to others while I go get some sleep then come back and race them for FTE to claim I have the camp back. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep in mind this ruling has almost no precedential value. The decision maker is clearly lamenting the lack of facts, and in this case the only option was a presumption that FTE carries it. Had the OP provided an acceptable form of evidence for his case, the presumption of FTE winning would have been defeated.

This situation is limited to its facts and likely would have no impact upon future scenarios that did not fit this exact fact pattern.

[t0lkien]

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

Keep in mind this ruling has almost no precedential value. The decision maker is clearly lamenting the lack of facts, and in this case the only option was a presumption that FTE carries it. Had the OP provided an acceptable form of evidence for his case, the presumption of FTE winning would have been defeated.

This situation is limited to its facts and likely would have no impact upon future scenarios that did not fit this exact fact pattern.

... except where those scenarios carry a lack of hard evidence beyond server logs (as is almost certain unless a GM happens to wander past at the time), in which case FTE and firepower carries the day.

Got it.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by t0lkien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... except where those scenarios carry a lack of hard evidence beyond server logs (as is almost certain unless a GM happens to wander past at the time), in which case FTE and firepower carries the day.

Got it.

I don't know what's saved server-side versus what is not. Obviously if there were evidence available to support the OP's claim the decision should be merited in his favor. However, Ambrotos' post seems to indicate that no evidence is available that would sufficiently support his claim.

Short of Whukes incriminating himself, yes there's only so much that can be done. Now, say he comes in here with a guilty attitude and a ton of butthurt (like I noted back on page 2) then yeah, a GM might be within his rights to say "you're either guilty as hell, or just very very rude, so I'm awarding the kill to the other guy."

However, that would again limit the ruling to this exact scenario. Short of proper facts being available do we WANT the rule to be "there is no rule?" If there's no evidence available the only standard is FTE. At the very least, that provides a reasonable way to measure an otherwise immeasurable situation and it gives notice to everyone exactly what measures they need to take to protect themselves.

Originally Posted by LiQuid

So it can't be proven that the monk was there for 6 hours and the wizard was there for 30 minutes? Can't GM's see when a character was on or offline?

I would think the server logs are detailed enough to show that, but Ambrotos' posts seem to say otherwise. If it can be proved that the OP was wrong, absolutely he should be compensated. However, it looks like it can't be proven. In that case, the only reasonable response is to measure what CAN be measured. Here, that would be FTE.

Originally Posted by Flamewraith

I'm sorry but 23 seconds is not a lot of time, especially at a strung out camp like Hadden. I know you're just working with what you have, but this is so disappointing. It's so obvious that the wiz is scum.

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

"5. Outdoor pathing mobs are not campable unless you are sitting at the spawn point and able to engage it instantly. Outdoor mobs on fast respawn such as HG and spectres, if you cannot engage immediately you do not hold the camp. Please try and share with fellow players in these instances. "

Read the rules, most of them are there and easy to read. If AC is running around and you aren't there on it, it's FFA. That's the risk you run camping it in SoRo and not OOT.

This isn't quite as broad as it might appear. Note that this is for outdoor pathing mobs only. Hadden is not a pather, and you have similar, equally, authoritative GM posts that say this:

Originally Posted by Ephi

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=837655&postcount=13

With a spawn timer as long as Tranix, best bet is to give them a few minutes to engage.

There's no "you must wait X minutes" rule, but we'll use our best judgement given the encounter logs and player statements should an issue arise in that area.

Bottom line: don't be a greedy jerk. But also don't squat AFK in a camp hoping to hold it.

End result is that you should be given a reasonable amount of time to engage. That time can extend the longer a mob's spawn window is. For outdoor pathers the standard is "immediately engage" which is probably 15 seconds or so. The standard for all other mobs appears to be "reasonable amount of time" which is probably closer to 2-3 minutes depending upon the mob and the difficulty of the surrounding environment. (See: Discussing Ephi's use of "a few minutes" and what that means.)

[Ambrotos]

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

I don't know what's saved server-side versus what is not. Obviously if there were evidence available to support the OP's claim the decision should be merited in his favor. However, Ambrotos' post seems to indicate that no evidence is available that would sufficiently support his claim.

Short of Whukes incriminating himself, yes there's only so much that can be done. Now, say he comes in here with a guilty attitude and a ton of butthurt (like I noted back on page 2) then yeah, a GM might be within his rights to say "you're either guilty as hell, or just very very rude, so I'm awarding the kill to the other guy."

However, that would again limit the ruling to this exact scenario. Short of proper facts being available do we WANT the rule to be "there is no rule?" If there's no evidence available the only standard is FTE. At the very least, that provides a reasonable way to measure an otherwise immeasurable situation and it gives notice to everyone exactly what measures they need to take to protect themselves.



I would think the server logs are detailed enough to show that, but Ambrotos' posts seem to say otherwise. If it can be proved that the OP was wrong, absolutely he should be compensated. However, it looks like it can't be proven. In that case, the only reasonable response is to measure what CAN be measured. Here, that would be FTE.

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

Camping a mob is a privelege, not a right. If someone wants the privelege of having sole claim to a mob, they have to make the sacrifice of whatever else they could be doing with themselves. Claim to a camp is a considerable advantage, it comes with a cost. Choose wisely.

TL;DR
Want it? Be there when it spawns to kill it.

[LiQuid]

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

Keep in mind this ruling has almost no precedential value. The decision maker is clearly lamenting the lack of facts, and in this case the only option was a presumption that FTE carries it. Had the OP provided an acceptable form of evidence for his case, the presumption of FTE winning would have been defeated.

This situation is limited to its facts and likely would have no impact upon future scenarios that did not fit this exact fact pattern.

So it can't be proven that the monk was there for 6 hours and the wizard was there for 30 minutes? Can't GM's see when a character was on or offline?

Edit: Oh, never mind, I guess it doesn't matter. Grats Whukes. LOL.

[Flamewraith]

This is a sad day for all honest people. Like I said Kylok shoot me a tell if you ever need help with anything. I'm sorry you had to experience this side of the server, just know that not everyone is like that. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[LiQuid]

So it doesn't matter that Kata was there first, FTE > owning the camp for Hadden?