Sebilis Crypt Camp

[quido]

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

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.

I think you can claim a portion of any camp where the spawns necessarily don't all come at once. Ask me about any specific scenario and I can probably explain it to you.

Let's consider a pain-in-the-ass "camp" like dog captain in KC. If I'm sitting up in the tower killing say 6 of the dogs, getting some exp hoping to score a jade mace, is someone allowed to come and say "this whole thing is mine now because you're not clearing it all." Hell no - that is absurd. We have always respected a player's right to claim whatever they can clear as long as it didn't extend to multiple "camps."

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I changed the wording in the original post. PlayerA isn't an asshole because he wants to solo camp a mob - that's all good. In my example I changed his name to AssholeA because he was then lawyering the camp rules to limit a group of 6 to one room, and thus likely make them leave (because what group of 6 wants to camp 1 mob for hours on end unless its something big) and reclaim both rooms when the group left (a dick move and srs rule lawyering, which i hate)

[quido]

Also I don't know why 2 years of precedent is now going out the window. We had a good understanding here - sometimes people weren't aware of how it was handled, but they were quickly informed and all was well.

I hope you can do the right thing and not arbitrarily change the rules 2 years later. One way or another, the rules regarding claiming Crypt are going to be an anomaly.

[Teppler]

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

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.

Is there a mandate to cater this game to groupers? Is there a mandate to encourage full groups rather than duos or trios? IMO a soloer or duo or trio should be looked at as having the same rights as a full group.

That being said, I prefer to respect when someone says they are holding down an area such as HS North. I'm just really confused because not to long ago a GM ruled you absolutely can lose 2/3 of your camp if you are soloing HS down and another group comes in and puts people at 2/3 of the camps you can't be at 100% of the time cause you're soloing and can only be at one spot at once. I was really annoyed at the ruling at the time but it seems to be the only consistent way to do things.... Letting CC's being a courtesy call and strickly having to be on the spawn point if someone wants to be a dick about the camps(and they have a right to be).

IDK I can go either way on this but I need to see a solid argument for holding camps without a physical presence right on those camps.

[Derubael]

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

To the staff :

How many routinely contested camps are there? 50 or so, tops? Why don't you just rigidly define and name each camp in terms of exactly what it comprises, and lay down exact rules for each camp or portion thereof? Then publish it in a document and then tell everybody to stfu and follow the document. If they don't like the camp definitions or the rules, they can go run their own server.

It will be a pain to get it written up, but I bet you would win big over time by not having to deal with everybody's opinions as to what a camp is and whats allowed.

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

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

Derubael, you're best served by not turning this into quote-fest and spending some time thinking about your position here.

Imaginary scenarios, as fun as they are to use for strengthening your argument, are nowhere near the idiocy that I've witnessed or been subject to at this particular camp and never petitioned.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.

IMO a 'lets all play nice' ruleset is best, it just doesn't work that way in practice.

My apologies if my position wasn't clear - I don't have a horse in this race, except as it applies to making sure everyone has a good time, and our guides don't lose their minds trying to mediate camp disputes. Furthermore, I'd like to make a clearly defined ruleset that can be easily read and understood by the majority of players, and that our guides can point to in disputes and say "these are the rules"

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

I hope you can do the right thing and not arbitrarily change the rules 2 years later. One way or another, the rules regarding claiming Crypt are going to be an anomaly.

Again, I'm not against this, and I apologize if I made it sound that way. I ruled this camp today (and have been ruling this camp this way) because thats what the camp rules are. I'm not the only staff member who was doing it like this. and this discussion is no longer about whether I made the 'right' or 'wrong' call based on previous precedent.

[quido]

I would also like you staffers to acknowledge that there WAS an executive decision regarding both the crypt being one camp, and people being able to claim a portion of it. I am not just making this up. The Crypt is an anomaly and has been handled as such for over two years.

You've had a handful of people tell you this - nobody has really disputed this being the case (though they might dislike it). It would be nice if you could just agree to keep it like it was. I can lay out the rules in clear English for you if you would like to have something official.

[fadetree]

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

Please feel free to submit a document with rulings and definitions for 50 different camps, because none of us are going to do it.

I don't have an argument here, I'm advocating for a clearly defined rule set that everyone can agree on and understand that doesn't have a bunch of grey areas that force our guides to make snap calls on when getting petitioned.

Well, thats fine, but you will get to continue to adjudicate 'camps' based on varying opinions. I'm not a guide or a member of the staff, make me one and I will write it.

My real point is that there IS no possible 'clearly defined ruleset that everyone can agree on' that will solve this problem. No amount of discussion will change that fact.

[Freakish]

I'm very curious about King Tranix. This is such a silly camp, its an 8 hour respawn and nobody in their right mind is going to stay there for 8 hours until he spawns time and again.

Is this actually a camp? Is it a FTE raid scenario? Do you have to clear the giants that you don't want to kill to get your Tranix down?

[Nirgon]

Classic rules do state that a GM has the final say on any camp decision, whether or not things were decided previously one way or another before.

You are also open as both parties in the area to work things out with the GM.

What the GM says is final.

So there's really no "right" and "wrong" you just gotta work things out with Deru by the classic handbook.

I think Jeremy's point is the right one given previous precedent, and maybe Deru can say "I will handle it this way in the future" (I hope).

However, nothing he decides to resolve a camp dispute at any point is wrong.

People are free to make decisions and complain, and based on his decision (how people are acting, how long certain people have been there) are up to him.

Welcome to governing a sand box MMO imo.

[Splorf22]

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

I changed the wording in the original post. PlayerA isn't an asshole because he wants to solo camp a mob - that's all good. In my example I changed his name to AssholeA because he was then lawyering the camp rules to limit a group of 6 to one room, and thus likely make them leave (because what group of 6 wants to camp 1 mob for hours on end unless its something big) and reclaim both rooms when the group left (a dick move and srs rule lawyering, which i hate)

Bend your ears, ladies and gentlemen, as I tell you the story of poor misunderstood player A. PlayerA is looking to buy ElitePixelX in EC because he doesn't feel like participating in the batphoning/poopsocking/rl smearing clusterfuck known as the P1999 raid scene. So he gets up early on a day when he has time and can study or whatnot from home, logs on his 60 shaman, and heads to the crypt. He kills the hiero PH, invises over to the duke, kills that PH, and goes AFK in the Hierophant's room to do homework/chores/etc. All is well.

After a few hours, he comes back and there is a group in the Duke's room. They probably called CC and he was AFK, so they showed up and found him there. Certain in the righteousness of their superior numbers, they threw the rulebook at him and said that he could only maintain a spawn if he was sitting on it. PlayerA is mildly annoyed by the temerity of these terrible players who need 6 people to kill a L55 mob, but rules are rules so he hangs out in the Hierophant's room. He's done with his homework now and he sees the Baron up so he tags him and begins the slaughter. GroupB promptly shows up with the rules lawyers again and says they have claim to it, even though they were not in that room, and that is precisely why they justified taking the duke.

OK, I had fun writing that. But the real point is Derubael, can you not see the raging inconsistency of your position? GroupB gets to claim the duke because PlayerA isn't in the Duke's room; PlayerA doesn't get to claim the Baron because GroupB isn't on the Baron's spawn point. The obvious (and symmetrical) ruling here is that PlayerA gets the hiero, GroupB gets the duke, and everything else is FFA. Instead you are basically playing populist and saying that whoever shows up with more people gets the camp. There is some logic to that, but that's a very dangerous path to tread. Imagine when that's applied to the raid scene [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]