RE: Camping

Hitpoint · #1 02-05-2014, 06:45 PM

Edit: to be clear this thread is about camped toons.

Response to this thread.

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=138177

Here are the raid rules on where you are allowed to camp and park.

Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location.
To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets.

Taken from: http://www.project1999.com/raid.php

Nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to a certain amount of people being camped in zone. You just can't be parked near the mobs spawn point. If the intention is to keep people from camping out inside a raid zone, they can easily change the word "vicinity" to "zones." Guilds who are parking at zone ins are not breaking the rules and will not be punished. I have only ever read that parking inside the planes may not be okay, as both planes are very small and the zone ins are relatively close to the mobs. If anything, this is what needs clarification.

I don't understand where all the misinformation in that thread came from. It might be due to confusion with the raid rules from one of the other proposed raid plans that didn't pan out. Never the less, with the exception of plane of hate/fear, it's pretty much accepted that the zone in is an okay place to camp out a raid in every other zone.

If GMs want to specify further, they can. But right now, guilds who are following the letter of the law are not taking advantage of anything or breaking any rules. All other raid guilds should be doing the same if they can. Nothing coming from me is official in any way, but I think this is the mindset of all the guilds who currently are camping inside raid zones. I hope this clears something up for those who are purposely avoiding being parked in the same zone.

Tiggles · #2 02-05-2014, 07:09 PM

Big shock some FE scumbag trying to exploit rules to eek out more mobs.

You already cheat the 2 mob bag limit by raiding as "different guilds" now you want to camp out characters again?

Trust me you'd lose 90% of the mobs like you did in the old days if other guilds could camp out characters.

Send this thread to RnF where it belongs.

Hitpoint · #3 02-05-2014, 07:11 PM

People are going to take that post seriously.

YendorLootmonkey · #4 02-05-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

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

Response to this thread.

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=138177

Here are the raid rules on where you are allowed to camp and park.

Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location.
To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets.

Taken from: http://www.project1999.com/raid.php

Nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to a certain amount of people being camped in zone. You just can't be parked near the mobs spawn point. If the intention is to keep people from camping out inside a raid zone, they can easily change the word "vicinity" to "zones." Guilds who are parking at zone ins are not breaking the rules and will not be punished. I have only ever read that parking inside the planes may not be okay, as both planes are very small and the zone ins are relatively close to the mobs. If anything, this is what needs clarification.

I don't understand where all the misinformation in that thread came from. It might be due to confusion with the raid rules from one of the other proposed raid plans that didn't pan out. Never the less, with the exception of plane of hate/fear, it's pretty much accepted that the zone in is an okay place to camp out a raid in every other zone.

If GMs want to specify further, they can. But right now, guilds who are following the letter of the law are not taking advantage of anything or breaking any rules. All other raid guilds should be doing the same if they can.

LOL... we just had an entire thread where BDA was told "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location" somehow meant that you cannot have more than two representatives in the zone, and that "how can it be any more clear than that?"

Quote:

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

Yes, and yes.

How daft can you be? You can't have people in PoFear killing trash for armor, why the hell would you be able to have people xping in KC?

Sitting at zone in? Just sit the fuck outside the zone line. What isn't clear about not being in the zone when the raid mob spawns?

Quote:

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

Cognitive thought process must completely fucking escape you... do you need a connect the dots done for you? If you have more than 2 ppl in the zone, exping or otherwise, you are pooched. If you have 2 ppl, you are good to go. Start your engines. How fucking hard was that? Lookin your way Samoht.

If Rogean suspended BDA for violating "the spirit of the rules", i.e.:

"That is way too close, not to mention the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules."

then

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets"

sure better mean players are to not camp out in the same zone, as "vicinity of raid targets" is a much larger area than "at a raid spawn location."

TL;DR: you can't have it both ways... if having more than 2 reps in the same zone as a target when it spawns disqualifies you from that target, then having a camped-out force in the same zone as a target when it spawns also disqualifies you from that target.

Hitpoint · #5 02-05-2014, 07:15 PM

Quote:

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

LOL... we just had an entire thread where BDA was told "Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location" somehow meant that you cannot have more than two representatives in the zone, and that "how can it be any more clear than that?"

If Rogean suspended BDA for violating "the spirit of the rules", i.e.:

"That is way too close, not to mention the spirit of this rule should indiciate that it is unacceptable to have a raid force anywhere in the zone when a raid mob spawned, as it is an unfair advantage over the other guilds following the rules."

then

"To encourage competitive racing, guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets"

sure better mean players are to not camp out in the same zone, as "vicinity of raid targets" is a much larger area than "at a raid spawn location."

TL;DR: you can't have it both ways... if having more than 2 reps in the same zone as a target when it spawns disqualifies you from that target, then having a camped-out force in the same zone as a target when it spawns also disqualifies you from that target.

Those posts are talking about characters being logged in. Mine is talking about parking camped toons. Perhaps I should be more clear next time. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to have a discussion to clear up the rules. Also, you are quoting Kagatob.

YendorLootmonkey · #6 02-05-2014, 07:18 PM

Quote:

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

Those posts are talking about characters being logged in. Mine is talking about parking camped toons. Perhaps I should be more clear next time. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to have a discussion to clear up the rules.

I understand that. I am saying that if the reasoning from the playerbase was that BDA shouldn't have more than 2 reps in the same zone when the wording is "no more than 2 reps at a raid target spawn", then you definitely shouldn't have camped/parked toons logged out in the same zone when the wording is "anywhere in the vicinity of the raid mob", as that implies an even larger area where you can't have camped-out toons than the other rule.

I also quoted Rogean himself who said the spirit of the rule is you should not have a raid force present anywhere in the zone. If that can somehow be extrapolated from "at a raid target spawn" from the rule we got suspended for, then it certainly applies to "anywhere in the vicinity of a raid spawn" for the rule you're seeking clarification on.

quido · #7 02-05-2014, 07:19 PM

Perhaps we should come up with some suggestions as far as where the line is drawn in each zone.

Kope · #8 02-05-2014, 07:22 PM

Quote:

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

Perhaps we should come up with some suggestions as far as where the line is drawn in each zone.

I do agree with this, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier if that line is set IN the zone? As in if you're inside the zone you're violating the rule, anything outside of the zone is fair game.

YendorLootmonkey · #9 02-05-2014, 07:23 PM

Quote:

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

I do agree with this, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier if that line is set IN the zone? As in if you're inside the zone you're violating the rule, anything outside of the zone is fair game.

Hitpoint · #10 02-05-2014, 07:22 PM

I can't speak for the whole playerbase. I'm sure that thread is filled with misinformation. But from what I remember, the real problem with the BDA thing is that there was a whole raid logged in and fighting halfway to Trakanon, and logs showed that a mob relatively close to Trakanon's lair had been killed recently. That's a huge difference from being camped at the zone in waiting for a coth. I think the rules allow for that difference.

Logically the zone in is what makes sense because it's the farthest you can reasonably be away from a raid mob, while still being in the same zone. Maybe, in theory there, are places that you can be which are still not in the vicinity of a raid target, but everyone just wants to play it safe and use zone in as the default. I think that's smart, and we should just make it an unofficial or maybe official rule.