Drama

[Deeps]

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

[soup]

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

Let's try a better example that more closely parallels the situation:

Guild A wipes on Vox and starts their CR for their next attempt. When they return, Guild B is engaging Vox. Guild A says they're on CR and had Vox. Guild B says "Well, you aren't here now and you had your chance, now we got Vox." Then, Guild B says "After we get Vox though, you can camp here and wait for the next Vox spawn... we'll be done with Vox after this spawn. We have jobs so we don't intend to camp the next Vox spawn." Guild A is like "Okay!" because for whatever reason that seems like a good deal to them! Because Guild B could totally be dicks and sit there and wait until the next Vox spawn and kill her again, but they are benevolent and offer this agreement to Guild A.

Then, holy shit!! Guild B can't do Vox without zoning. They are no longer in Permafrost. Guild A is sitting right there, remembering how totally awesome it was for Guild B to take Vox on them when they left the zone (it just happened to be without their corpse/inventories). But they had an agreement with Guild B based on Guild B's leverage over them at the time that Guild B in fact had rights to Vox since Guild A wasn't there. But now Guild B isn't there, so Guild A has rights to Vox.

Guild B no longer has the leverage which the agreement was based on. Part of the agreement was based on the fact that Guild A no longer had rights to Vox and would not be getting a Vox kill that night. But those conditions of the agreement changed when Guild B zoned out.

You're trying too hard to put tons of parallels in, when all that is relevant is the agreement. Does guild A agree to let guild B kill Vox? Yes. Do they make any stipulations about what nullifies the agreement? No. Do they kill Vox anyway? Yes. They are douche bags, with the only exception being if guild B is physically unable to kill Vox. Not if they wipe once, but if they can't and are forced to give up. You agreed to let them kill it, changing the agreement because you don't like how they do it is shady bullshit. Moving in on the camp because the enchanter is regening his pet isn't much different than a guild leap frogging another that has cleared all the giants and shit while they are medding and buffing up. Zoning out and then in is the enchanters medding and buffing up in this situation. You're not exactly honoring your agreement if you never even let the person prep and engage the mob.

If you agree to trade 12K for a FBSS, and the conditions of that agreement change because the buyer puts 1200pp into the trade window, you are not bound by that agreement, right? Or are you a douchebag for not hitting TRADE anyway?

Okay wow, this is definitely the most retarded thing in this thread I gotta say. The agreement here is "I give you the FBSS, you give me the 12k" and the other person doesn't honor their end, so you don't honor yours. How exactly do you parallel that to the guk situation? The enchanter offered up the camp after one round of spawns, the group offered up that one round of spawns. Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

It's not like we didn't know that this time around. We have no one to blame but ourselves for choosing the classes that we did. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[soup]

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

How come you didn't just send a tell to somebody in that group?

/tell groupmember Gonna zone so my pet can regen, still taking the mob, brb kthnxbai

That can go both ways.

Why didn't they send a tell to see whats up before moving in?
"Hey, what are you doing? We're here waiting and ready to go?"
if he's being sketchy and they're questioning the deal now, they could even say like "Whats going on? If you aren't here in 2 minutes we're going in"

there's a ton of better ways to handle it aside from just plowing on in.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

[Alawen Everywhere]

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

IMO, I think its lame that 2 or 3 classes and 6 people get to solo the six good camps in the zone, I think solo'ers should have to step aside for group s of 4 or more, but, that really has nothing to do with this i guess.

I think we all know that enchanters that tried this on live were called "dead". There's this weird idea that no one stacked charisma and no one knew how to charm that apparently allows this situation to continue. Can you even imagine charming and hasting a planar mob on live? It would wipe your entire raid after a couple mez resists.

The best explanation I've seen for this situation is Uuae's theory that resists are calculated as a percentage of 400 rather than as a percentage of 250 or whatever they're supposed to be. This would be consistent with how easily I land druid and cleric nukes even on red cons. On live, the druid nukes with debuff components never landed on anything worth killing, they were just a good way to go oom.

Now watch, druid and cleric nukes will get nerfed, but charm will continue as is. :P

[YendorLootmonkey]

By soup's logic, I can go around in LGuk making agreements with other groups about rights to camps I don't have rights to, and when those agreements aren't honored, they are the douchebags.

[Alawen Everywhere]

This story has gotten tiresome. Soup is the only one arguing pro-soloist and his logic, analogies and arguments are all terrible. Going to pride parade and Alice in the park, bye!

[soup]

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

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

It wasn't his camp anymore because the group he made a deal with stole it from him, rofl

[Wrei]

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

Or mezzing the pet and mem blurring to get the same end result, with the added benefit of not giving up the camp.

That would imply "playing" their class... there's a lot of options of which mez/blur is but one of them (1 of the shittiest one since blur is so random). The OP made it a point to stress on the 20 sec, what if it was longer then that? 30? 1min?5min? At what point do you say "ok, he's been gone too long and we can take over the camp". This is why you don't leave in the first place and if you do to make sure that the other party understands what your about to do.

Next time your in a similar situation, just put your foot down and keep the camp if you want to be a dick about it. Don't expect to get a fair deal when the retarded balancing doesn't allow the other 90% of the classes to do what your able to do. This isn't about solo vs group but an enchanter crying over a king camp seriously makes me lol... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]