Ancient Cyclops in Sro

[Nietche]

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

(I strongly suspect a lvl 31 wiz would have difficulty against the AC solo).

I wonder if said wizzie had been level 5, if the loot transfer would still have occurred. Sucks that you put 20 hours into it and lost it due to an unknown fte.

Oh just read this.

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

Oh wow, this isn't even the encounter I was thinking of. Couple things:

OP paints a picture of being right there ready to engage the target and someone sneakily sniped it out from under him right after it spawned. Encounter log shows something different:

Spawned: Thu Sep 25, 2014; 20:31:37
Meltan Engages: 20:33:56 (over 2 minutes after it spawned)
Then a Druid engages at 20:34:37, Druid is in the same guild as the wizard.
Finally, at 20:35:16, OP engages the AC. (nearly 4 minutes after it spawns)

After that, 2 other people pile on, including another Wizard who does almost as much damage as the bard. No one is grouped. Even if this had been a legitimate camp as opposed to an "uncampable" mob, waiting 4 minutes to engage a spawn is pushing it.

OP clearly knew the mob was engaged, as it had been chasing after another player for almost 2 minutes at that point. Do I have the wrong encounter log? Because this is the only one I see with your name on it attacking an AC.

I also don't see any reimbursement requests to have the ring moved to Meltan, nor do I see any delete/move requests in CSR chat. OP, if Eunomia told you to hold onto that ring and not turn it in I would continue to do so, but I'm starting to think this was a troll. I feel dirty inside.

As a side note, when I was still a player I killed a white con AC at level 35 on a wizard in rags, so I can see a 31 wizard killing one of the lower level AC spawns (Wiki level range is incorrect, though I can't provide an exact number as per CSR policy).

[Nietche]

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

How would this be a different story? If I was running towards the mob and he engaged it even .00000001 seconds before me, he gets the first engage regardless and it's his AC no matter what because that's the rule of the server. If I was able to keep the ring in this case, then there would be a breaking of said rule, since it would actually be his ring.

Rules are rules. The whole point of this thread is about rules. If there were no rules, everything would be FFA.

Derubael is throwing you a bone, imo, and you are throwing it in his face. Had the encounter log shown a 15-second difference instead of 4 minutes between the two engagements, I think Derubael and Eunomia would have considered your plea notwithstanding the letter of the law.

But if by your own admission the purpose of this thread was to change the rules for the SRO AC to be campable, you are barking up the wrong tree. I don't think anyone agrees with you. Our initial responses were based upon the belief that you engaged seconds after the AC spawn, that you didn't know Meltan had engaged first, and that you felt wronged due to the perceived injustice of not getting an AC ring as a result of the first two. None of that seems to be the case.

[kruptcy]

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

Mez won't put you on the encounter log, so we'd have nothing to show that you were first to engage.

Mezz then tash!

[Nirgon]

He should be immune to fire in SRO. It is still not the case here.

I stand by this statement.

[Sancta]

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

Had the encounter log shown a 15-second difference

I don't think anyone agrees with you.

the perceived injustice

No because even if there was a 15 second difference and I was able to keep the ring, then that would be a bending of the rules, the Wizard still has the right to the ring in this case. FTE is FTE.

If you read the thread, there were people that agreed that the person trying to get it to spawn should have some claim to it.

There was no injustice, not even a little. The wizard got the ring fair and square. Again, not once was this disputed.

[brecon]

so to bring this back to the start....you knew the rules, broke the rules, and knowing you broke the rules, wrote a post to show that the rule that you broke that you knew you had broken that was enforced correctly is wrong.

i'm super confused.

[Sancta]

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

so to bring this back to the start....you knew the rules, broke the rules, and knowing you broke the rules, wrote a post to show that the rule that you broke that you knew you had broken that was enforced correctly is wrong.

i'm super confused.

No, actually I didn't know I had first engage when I engaged it. It was at 100% hp and not attacking anything. The GM informed me I didn't have first engage so the ring was given to the Wizard. The rule that exists for this spawn was ruled correctly.

But there is a legit way to trigger the spawn and camp it, so I wanted a review on the rule and a change on the rule. Doesn't look like it's happening though.

[Atmas]

For the record I think a 31 wizard could take a 32 AC. I had a similar experience when I was a younger wizard and encountered the elusive South Karana AC spawn. A long drawn out fight ensued. I was lucky enough to have a higher level Druid friend come by and help me kill it but, had they not shown up it probably would have just been a long kite. As long as you can mana regen and gain ground over the health regen + snare recasting mana costs + resists you will eventually get the kill. It gets easier if you get to a point where the mob is running.

[brecon]

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

No, actually I didn't know I had first engage when I engaged it. It was at 100% hp and not attacking anything. The GM informed me I didn't have first engage so the ring was given to the Wizard. The rule that exists for this spawn was ruled correctly.

But there is a legit way to trigger the spawn and camp it, so I wanted a review on the rule and a change on the rule. Doesn't look like it's happening though.

I get it now. I didn't realize from the start that your question was not on this PARTICULAR incident....which has been like all of the conversation. That's why we have all focused on the level of the wizard, the 100% hp level, etc.

With regards to the general body of rules governing this camp, I don't think there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but I understand varying opinions can be held.