Quote Originally Posted by Kya View Post
This post is pointless never going chang the calm system i hope they dont so make this game harder not like a 5 year old game
You are correct sir. That WAS the most pointless post I have ever seen. And it's not a five year old game; it's a nine year old game. Unless you meant five year old's.

And I certainly do hope they never chang the calm, that would certainly make the game harder than a five year old.

Quote Originally Posted by HFX7686
Mostly I believe it's a waste of developer time to be messing with the claim system when they could be doing other interesting things, especially since keeping claim is relatively simple when you do a bit of research and learn how. It just seems unimportant to change.

Plus, if you full wipe, why waste an NM? Let someone else have it. It's not like you're going to be able to get it back anyway.
As has been gone over, there isn't really a feasible way to change the existing claim system without causing other issues. And it wouldn't be a wise use of developer time, I agree. That was one alternative suggested.

The primary issue that needs addressing is claim stealers themselves. If the ToS doesn't allow griefing or harassment by means of a player intentionally following another player around and preventing them from attacking mobs by claiming them all (and that IS against the ToS, although it has to be proven it was intentional, which is pretty much impossible anyway), then this type of behavior should fall into a similar category. Idling near specific mobs (ones that lesser skilled/inexperienced players or even HQ players having a blond moment can lose claim to in a clearly non-wipe situation because of Charm etc) with the intention of stealing claim should be a violation of ToS, and I feel the ToS should be revised to take this into account.

In the interests of maintaining (some measure of) civility and sportsmanship, it should really be a no-brainer that people that set up shop for the sole purpose of repeatedly cashing in on the momentary misfortune of another group should be faced with consequences.

I hate analogies because they're all one-sided and twisted to fit/by the author's personal perspective, but I'll use one in this case:

A man pulls up at a convenience store in a suburban area filled with crime. There is a high rate of car break-in smash and grabs in this particular neighborhood, and so it is possible to be a victim of this at any time. Most of the locals are aware of the danger and always keep their car in a line of sight as they shop. This man is somewhat new to the neighborhood though, and doesn't understand the risks. As this man is checking out and handing his change on the clerk, he hears a loud smash. He looks out the window and sees a man attempting to break his window.

He rushes out to chase the hoodlum off. In the meantime, unbeknownst to him, there was a man idling inside the store, seemingly wandering about harmlessly. This man knows of the high car burglary rate, and makes it a habit to be ready for it. He quickly runs up to the counter and asks the clerk to bag the items the man already paid for. For some odd reason, this is perfectly acceptable. The item was already paid for, and the person who paid for it relinquished it, so it became fair game.

If the car burglary hadn't occurred and the man had finished checking out properly, the loitering man would have just loitered around the store and waited for the next potential victim. If the man checking out realized he had purchased more than he could carry (very weak point of analogy, I know but it's late and I couldn't scrape something better off the top of my head), he might not be pleased with letting someone else have his items but there's little he can do about it; that clerk doesn't give refunds, so he would have grudgingly relinquished some items to the loiterer. Since it isn't uncommon for people to purchase more than they can carry, nobody really cares if someone else comes along and gets the leftovers (there's your wipe analogy). Some people are offended by the fact that the clerk lets the loitering man take the items of the people that rush out to protect their vehicle though.

So yeah, a really weird, weak, twisted and one-sided analogy about how (I feel) camping on top of charm/etc mobs for an opportunity at taking someone else's hard work (and by camping I mean habitually, as in repeat offender) is wrong and should be punishable.