|
|
#52
10-05-2013, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
A lot of people struggling to understand.
Forcing someone to stay at a single camp with the threat of losing it because you'll move in as soon as they try to pull an extra mob, while you take the rest of the zone, is a dick move. Stop being a dick, you'll be a happier person. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#53
10-05-2013, 10:52 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#54
10-05-2013, 11:23 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#55
10-05-2013, 12:04 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#56
10-05-2013, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Guy 1 is alone in a zone. He is camping named spawn A but pulling trash for exp/vendor loot between spawns as well as clearing other named camps (X and Y for purposes of this example) since he can handle all of it. Spawn times of anywhere from 16 to 45 mins are the norm in classic EQ and there is no reason to sit around on your nuts when you are alone in a zone just because you are after one particular thing. Guy 2 enters and calls for a camp check. Guy 1 answers camp A but that he is also clearing X and Y. Instead of being an etchical and courteous player, Guy 2 chooses to be a typical p99 rule lawyering nutsack and tells Guy 1 he has to sit at the spawn he wants or he will take it from him, citing the non-classic server rule regarding camps that never existed on live. Not wanting to lose the spawn he is after, Guy 1 does exactly that, losing all chances of getting exp, cash loot, or the potential of other named drops that he has already spent the time and effort clearing. Guy 2 proceeds to farm camps X and Y, as well as B, C, D, E.....etc. Because he has not committed to a camp and is farming anything that drops, he uses the nonclassic camp rule that never existed on live to pin Guy 1 down to one camp, opening the entire rest of the zone up to himself. He could just leave the content that Guy 1 was clearing and handling just fine before he got there alone, but when you are an asshole and have a rule you can lawyer on your side, why do something like that? One of these players is a dick, and it's not the player who was there first.
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#57
10-05-2013, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
Read the original post, read this last page's worth, and then I read the server rules. I'm left with a question.
With the Lower Guk situation, a new player enters the zone and sees most everything is dead. They call a camp check, so the first person calls out the camp they want most and will keep cleared. I get that. The new player then calls out a camp they really want that is not the primary camp the first one calls out and then... What happens to the extra camps? Is the new player wrong to attempt to clear the spawns near the central point of the camp they now claimed? Is the first player wrong to continue to clear everything that they can in the place, excluding the new player's claimed camp? From the server rules, it appears (or is implied) that it becomes a FFA situation. Only one camp can be claimed by one player. So are they both dicks to compete against each other for those open camps? The rules pretty much place them as fair game. Edit - agreed that the 2nd player in the actual situation was a dick to use implied threat of loss of the prized camp for dominating the rest of the zone. | ||
|
Last edited by NegaStoat; 10-05-2013 at 03:00 PM..
|
|
||
|
#58
10-05-2013, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
2nd player (the lawyer in this case) needs to at a minimum adhere to the rules he's trying to put on the 1st player - rules which are sketchy considering the situation.
If he is taking ass/sup, he needs to sit in there for as long as he wants the camp, otherwise he'll lose his own camp under the same consequences he took it in the first place. Who'd want to be a GM though, in all honesty... trying to sort out that shit? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#59
10-05-2013, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
Assuming both players claim a camp each, yes. Problem is the rules lawyers use the non classic rule to make the other person sit at one spawn, while not claiming one of their own. If you've been camping a particular item alone for hours, you don't want to lose it. So the assholes, basicly, cite the rule to threaten you with taking your camp from you to get you out of the way so they can take whatever they want. It's ridiculous.
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#60
10-05-2013, 03:34 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Cite their own rule back at them [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] If they KS, petition...simples. Sadly you have to stoop to their level to flush them out of the zone [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
