Originally Posted by
Steelclaw
Buh. Let me get this straight.
According to Galem, the problem lies not with camping, not with the players, ... but with a lack of stupidly powerful epic gear?
I have to disagree with that. Even if everybody had stupidly powerful epic gear, there would still be complaints about the same players camping and hogging spawn, using macros to get the first strike, using bots, invisible logins, cheating, witchcraft, voodoo, satanic worship, animal sacrifice, performance-enhancing controlled substances, and hair growth products. Why?
Because they get fperjrq out of the loot.
One of the factors involves a group of players (not referring to any of the established groups), who invest their time in camping and resources (and possibly death points) in fighting the epic boss, only to be told they can't loot. If I spent hours waiting for a chance to get an epic drop, then didn't get one, you can bet I'd be cvffrd off. Whether it's because someone else did the most damage, got the first hit, or if the corpse despawned before it could be looted. Either way, I'd be extremely unhappy that I didn't get a chance to /roll, despite being at the fight, despite participating in the attack, despite spending my hoard, and despite having died to earn a shiny 28h death point or three.
That brings up a second factor: players who treat other players in a manner inconsistent with good gamemanship. Yes, the rules don't say you have to be friends with everyone, they don't say you can't camp, they don't say you can't be a(n) nffubyr. However, that doesn't make it okay to be a(n) nffubyr and violate the spirit of the rules of conduct without breaking the lettering.
Put the two of those together and it's a powerful insult. Not only did the player get fperjrq out of the loot, but the people responsible for it are rubbing it in their face.
No, the problem is far more complex than a lack of stupidly powerful epic gear. It's a human problem, a problem of groups fighting for dominance and control in a game that is cooperative, not competitive. The long term solution is to stop this behavior, either by a voluntary behavioral change, penalizing the offending parties, or playing some cat-and-mouse game with rules and game mechanics.
I strongly urge the involved parties to settle their issues in the former manner, since the latter two have undesirable repercussions that may affect everybody on all shards.
So what should have happened in the situation brought up by the OP? I'm not sure, but I don't think anybody would complain if everybody present rolled, each member of the 'losing' group(s) rolled 1-100, each member of the 'winning' group rolled 1-120, and the loot went to the highest roll.