Tintinabula wrote: »I still don't see how you could possibly prove its a troll FC. I mean all I would say is:" I didn"t place it at resource cause resource was being attacked."."I chose the spot for dueling purposes"." I chose the spot for a scroll run"
4 of the 10 camps on our map were troll camps.. If you look closely, you can see where we NEEDED to camp but was unable to due to being troll camped by whom ever wanted to get at that certain keep with a certain scroll in it.. This troll camping went on for a good 2-3 hours..
thelordoffelines wrote: »Tintinabula wrote: »I still don't see how you could possibly prove its a troll FC. I mean all I would say is:" I didn"t place it at resource cause resource was being attacked."."I chose the spot for dueling purposes"." I chose the spot for a scroll run"
4 of the 10 camps on our map were troll camps.. If you look closely, you can see where we NEEDED to camp but was unable to due to being troll camped by whom ever wanted to get at that certain keep with a certain scroll in it.. This troll camping went on for a good 2-3 hours..
I'm glad u posted that picture because I can't tell if that camp by glademist is a troll camp or just a camp that was placed in hopes to start a siege on that keep. You can't punish people who place camps in not the most optimal places. The only real way to stop troll camps would be to either increase the cost which might not stop it entirely depending on how much they care about AP or to have a system where x amount of people could vote a camp to be removed as it is useless.
@Rylana maybe or maybe not. I would say there a few too many defensive FCs before the one that's out of position NW which may be a backup for the attacks up there.
@Rylana maybe or maybe not. I would say there a few too many defensive FCs before the one that's out of position NW which may be a backup for the attacks up there.
Tintinabula wrote: »its not like someone calling you names fluffy...it prevents "real" FCs from being placed. lol

