Stalling on engages

[arsenalpow]

Here's what the raid policy states
Invulnerability spells used on engagement may only be for mechanic strategies, and may not be used to stall engagement.
So the whole point of this is to prevent stall tanking right? What about the new escalation of tactics where the two "trackers' are face tracking characters armed with discs and soulfires?

Inny popped, TMO's two monks popped up, 1 took the DT, the other stalled long enough with whirlwind+soulfires until the cavalry arrived and burnt the god down. Wouldn't this be a violation or at least a bending of the rules? The whole point is this is supposed to be a race and it's not really a race with these escalation of tactics.

Would like a staff response please.

[arsenalpow]

Have received 3 TMO private messages so far defending their actions. I don't care who had the first FTE or who got charmed thus preserving their life or if IB used discs and soulfires too. Having a bunch of non trackers in zone watching for a mob spawn while FD so everyone can blow discs and soulfires removes all of the race component. It's stalling. It's why DA idols are only to be used for positioning.

Admin response desired.

[Yaolin]

Every mob should either be pulled to a raid or a full raid engage, shouldn't really matter if you are stalling with DA Idol, Disc, or Soulfires, stalling is stalling.

Shouldn't be able to park a pet on a spawn point either, but pixels get people really really hard on this server.

Pixels > Fun/Skills

The shinier you are the better you are, I have never heard anyone say "Hey bro, look at how hard I out auto-attacked you!"

One EQ Server in 2000 was only meant to have MAYBE 5% of the LvL 60s we have on this server currently. All fun and skill has been removed from end-game competitive raiding and as long as people believe that raid mobs can only be up for a matter of minutes then shit will probably stay this way.

If it isn't monks using Whirlwind and soulfires it will be something else down the line because the only thing that matters is the W, not how you actually achieved it.

24/7 or die!

[Derubael]

Lets get a Rogean (not Sirken/Deru anti-casual bias) ruling on what he meant by stall tanking and the intent of the rules, then. Is all we're asking.

You guys need to stop calling for the CSR staff every-time you can't work something out on your own. We implemented a number of rules to curb poopsocking and try to give guilds like BDA, Taken, AG, more of a chance to hit FFA targets. But instead of curbing poopsocking, everyone just socks at the entrances now. It's clearly a failed experiment, but at least for now it's being left in.

Rogean in particular is extremely busy doing code work for both servers. Every time you guys want a rule change he has to pull the senior staff into Skype and we have to talk about whatever that change is, sometimes for hours. It takes time, it takes energy, and when it's something you guys are capable of working around on your own, that needs to happen. We've already spent countless hours on this trying to make things better for everyone, but it's just never going to be enough. Somewhere the line has to be drawn - the raid community on this server is a small - albeit important - percentage of the server. Let's try to figure things out like adults without needing to ask the staff to make our decisions for us.

Furthermore, you don't get to pick your GM's. There's a reason why Rogean has Sirken and myself. It's so he doesn't have to deal with front line CSR, raid disputes, et al. His time is much better spent doing the work that he's doing right now, as it impacts everyone's play experience.

For reference, here's the new raid policy regarding disputes (and, by extension, player rule changes). We tried to stress this at the meetings we had back in January, but apparently everyone (and I'm not singling out either class here - both sides are guilty of this) thought we were just kidding, so I wrote this up for clarification:

We are moving to a system where raid disputes are player adjudicated and resolved. If there is a dispute involving two or more parties in which a rule has been broken, bringing that dispute to the GM's is a last resort, after all other options have been explored. We greatly encourage players involved in disputes to work with each other to find their own solutions to situations that arise during raids, and reaching a compromise that will almost always be preferable to GM intervention. Obviously this is not a new notion by any means - but from here on out it will be the regular procedure for handling a dispute, as opposed to the exception.

In the past, the go-to solution for a raid dispute was to put in a petition and let the staff decide what to do. We feel there are few, if any, situations that cannot be resolved through cooperation and compromise. If a dispute needs to be brought to a GM, it is very likely both sides will walk away unhappy with the result. It is therefore in all parties best interest to work together to come to their own resolution.

This change will largely affect Class C guilds, as Class R guilds have their own prearranged agreement as to how Class R spawns should be handled that is conducive to an environment that produces fewer disputes. This system, however, is not class exclusive, and if one or more groups are involved in a dispute, we expect the situation to be handled in a similar fashion regardless of class affiliation.

From this point forward we expect players to exhaust every possible option to reach an agreement during a dispute before involving the staff. We do not believe this to be an unreasonable request, as everyone here has the knowledge, capacity, and understanding to be able to work out these problems on their own.

We are confident this will provide less staff intervention, more cooperation between competing guilds, and an overall better raid scene for everyone. We look forward to an exciting and fun year of raiding across Antonica, Kunark, and Velious!

Basically this means it's time for you guys to start working out your own problems, no matter how difficult that may be. And again, I'm not saying anyone hasn't been trying here - but from this point forward everyone is going to try harder. This means both sides - all guilds - work hard to try and communicate with each other, schedule meetings, and be available for discussions. It means putting aside your differences, both game related and out of game, holding hands, and hugging it out (just kidding, but you get the point). As I stated before, this is not an unreasonable request. Everyone is fully capable of doing this on their own without the need for CSR intervention.

In the meantime, the rules state invulnerability items specifically, and while I agree that realistically Soulfire's should only be clickable by paladins, that isn't classic and I don't see it getting changed anytime soon. In the meantime, everyone can employ the face tracking tactics being used, and this should be easier to accomplish with the reduced variance windows (IE, you don't have to track for +/-48 hrs plus extended variance).

The CSR staff does not need to take out more time to set more rules that will only increase our work-load, both in their implementation and planning, and their enforcement. We are already swamped enough as it is. What we need is for everyone to come together and start cooperating with each other. Good luck, and I have 100% confidence that every possible option and avenue of discussion will be exhausted before any more disputes or rule changes get elevated beyond the senior ranking officers among the player guilds on this server.

We're giving you guys the power to make your own enjoyable raid scene, with less headaches for us and more fun for you. Let's make that happen.

[Ella`Ella]

Since we still have no resolution (25 days later) on IB vs TMO, case number 212205, can we move to summary judgement that Class-C guilds will not longer be subject to CSR support and we can act accordingly?

[Derubael]

Since we still have no resolution (25 days later) on IB vs TMO, case number 212205, can we move to summary judgement that Class-C guilds will not longer be subject to CSR support and we can act accordingly?

No, this is going to get dealt with.

[arsenalpow]

Derub can you not cherry pick an RnF comment to make a point. I posted in the raid discussion to get a response this allowing anyone else to comment as needed. We can attempt to work this out but nothing in RnF could ever lead to a productive result.

[Ella`Ella]

Derub can you not cherry pick an RnF comment to make a point. I posted in the raid discussion to get a response this allowing anyone else to comment as needed. We can attempt to work this out but nothing in RnF could ever lead to a productive result.

Your question was answered in his above post. Consider who have you spoken to in the other guilds to try and get a better understanding of what is going on or who have you approached to maaaaaybe ask if we'd/they'd consider alternative tactics if you feel slighted by this one. Might be more effective than coming straight to the raid discussion forum every other FFA encounter.

[arsenalpow]

Your question was answered in his above post. Consider who have you spoken to in the other guilds to try and get a better understanding of what is going on or who have you approached to maaaaaybe ask if we'd/they'd consider alternative tactics if you feel slighted by this one. Might be more effective than coming straight to the raid discussion forum every other FFA encounter.

Hyperbole, whee!

I have yet to engage about these escalation of tactics so that's why I'm bringing it up. As a representative of your respective guild I assume your position is that your tactics were completely plausible, at least I'm gleaning this position based on how you seem to be approaching the conversation.

So pretty please with sugar on top can we stop putting two fucking people on every fucking spawn point?

[phiren]

The name of this board is called "Raid Discussion". I think the Raid Discussion is a fine place to bring up issues for discussion.. on raiding. Without this post, I wouldn't have known what the issue is ... and this is something *EVERY* guild needs to agree on... otherwise it won't work.

If ONE guild doesn't want to change tactics, it makes no sense. I know exactly why TMO does things the way they do -- and I don't blame them at all. Why would TMO want to change their ways and give someone else an advantage?

Why would TMO not use whirlwind/Soulfire if IB / BDA use it?

Unfortunately -- if these aren't eventually GM written -- they also hold no weight.

Let's say all ~12 guilds agree that Whirlwind+Soulfire = stalling.
Let's' say the next week, one of those guilds uses Whirlwind+Soulfire on the Inny pull.

Now what do we do? Ask the 1 guild to please hand over the loot... OR ELSE? Ask them nicely to please don't do it again?

I'm sorry -- but the only way is to have the GMs involved. Guilds will never agree to better/cleaner raiding tactics and actually follow them unless there are ACTUAL penalties involved.

I would love it if we could enforce player rules... "If TMO Whirlwinds+Soulfires Inny again, all the other guilds will stop porting them, buffing them, and selling them items in the EC Tunnel". And good luck finding a group !!!!!!!!!!!! oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo? :)

~Phiren
Azure Guard

[Ella`Ella]

Hyperbole, whee!

I have yet to engage about these escalation of tactics so that's why I'm bringing it up. As a representative of your respective guild I assume your position is that your tactics were completely plausible, at least I'm gleaning this position based on how you seem to be approaching the conversation.

So pretty please with sugar on top can we stop putting two fucking people on every fucking spawn point?

I wouldn't mind seeing 1 tracker per target and everyone else at WC =P

[arsenalpow]

All the class R guilds work out their issues. We have a board dedicated to communication within our class. TMO and IB were trading petitions/fraps and negotiating early release from suspensions.

Decreeing that we're supposed to work with each other to come to an amicable solution is a noble idea but if all the class R guilds can work out our issues and TMO/IB can't play nicely, what makes you think that we'll all just figure out these issues together?

TMO's contention is that it wasn't really a pure stall. Someone immediately grabbed FTE after the other guy got DTed, then someone else got charmed, then someone else flopped, then charm broke and that guy ended up with the final FTE. So for the entire duration of Inny spawning there were 3-4 monks herp derping around jostling for FTE while the zerg rushed up to his room. Please please please explain to me how that's any semblance of competition.

[Derubael]

Derub can you not cherry pick an RnF comment to make a point. I posted in the raid discussion to get a response this allowing anyone else to comment as needed. We can attempt to work this out but nothing in RnF could ever lead to a productive result.

This comment was 'cherry picked' because it's not the first time something like this has been requested (IE, straight to Rogean, because GM's answers aren't valid) See:

Admin response desired.

But thanks for cherry picking one small section from RnF of my very valid, relevant, and constructive post.


I'm sorry -- but the only way is to have the GMs involved. Guilds will never agree to better/cleaner raiding tactics and actually follow them unless there are ACTUAL penalties involved.

~Phiren
Azure Guard

I never said we wouldn't get involved, or that we wouldn't enforce player made agreements - but the agreements themselves need to be worked out among the guilds. Only in situations where every other possible option has been explored should people be bringing issues to the CSR staff.

That being said, it is absolutely possible for the players to mediate their own disputes. If you feel you may have accidentally trained another guild, if there's even the possibility that you screwed up their engage, you can simply give them that mob as a free engage. If you see a guild breaking a rule, instead of immediately bringing it to us in hopes of getting the other guild suspended, it would be far better for the two guilds in question to work out their own deal.

Everyone in this forum is a guild officer, in long established guilds, in one of the most prolific open world raid environments in any MMORPG still up and running today. We are all adults, and we all can offer creative solutions to difficult problems. There is little reason why a dispute should need to be brought to our attention except in the most dire of circumstances.

To reflect this attitude and change of pace, we will be declining to intervene in any situation where a significant amount of discussion hasn't gone on between the two parties in question. This does not mean a few posts on a message board, or a 20 minute text conversation, or even a one hour phone call. We (the GM's) often spend many hours or even days going over disputes in order to reach a decision. We feel it's fair to ask that the players do the same.


Decreeing that we're supposed to work with each other to come to an amicable solution is a noble idea but if all the class R guilds can work out our issues and TMO/IB can't play nicely, what makes you think that we'll all just figure out these issues together?


Compromise. Negotiation. Again, there is no reason why these issues can't be worked out sans GM involvement. It's easy to simply state "well, WE'RE trying to work things out, but THEY'RE being unreasonable!!" without actually evaluating what it is you've tried to accomplish and what you're asking for. Both sides need to make legitimate attempts to see each issue from all angles and viewpoints. This is essential to being ale to work together properly. If all you can do is make demands based on your side of the issue, this will never work. You guys will learn how to get along, mediate your own disputes, and work out your own agreements.

In negotiation or dispute, it is always the other side who's being unreasonable, not cooperating, or not trying hard enough. From your viewpoint, your requests are appropriate and fair, in their viewpoint, your requests are ridiculous and out of hand. This is the nature of how these discussions work. Everyone is going to have to come down off their high horse for this to be effective and make raiding more enjoyable for everyone.

We are not asking anything of the players that the staff has not already done. You guys (all of you) will actually have to make real attempts to (oh shit) get along and communicate. This may not always be easy, it may not always be enjoyable, but it absolutely is going to happen.

Once again, we have full confidence we are not asking anything you are incapable of accomplishing, nor are we asking anything of you that we would not be willing to do ourselves. The CSR staff is now here as a last resort in raid disputes and policy. If everyone does not want to put forth a real effort in getting along and making this happen, we can guarantee you will not like our alternative solution to a given situation. It's in everyone's best interests to lower their expectations, be open to suggestions, and come up with creative solutions to the problems the raid scene faces.

Have some faith in yourselves. You can do it.

[arsenalpow]

Again, it was cherry picked from RnF. I can start quoting some Alarti nonsense and it still won't be constructive to the conversation.

So far TMO's stance has been "sack up Class R" so I'm thinking there's a chasm between our two positions. That was the whole point of class divisions in the first place, our two playstyles are fundamentally different. I don't speak for the entirety of class R but I'd suspect that their notion of competition would mean trackers aren't face tracking and engaging raid targets. That the competition itself should be a race and not a fastest javelin in the west situation.

[Derubael]

Again, thanks for cherry picking and completely ignoring the rest of the message. Simply quoting a post one of your guild members made in RnF does not invalidate my message, it's points, or it's merits. I will assume your narrow minded comments are simply a side effect of trying to come up with more effective ways of mediating disputes, creating more open lines of communication, and brainstorming creative solutions to problems between all the guilds, so that we can all flourish in a better, more cooperative raid environment!

A more appropriate response here would have been "Thank you, we will do everything in our power to make this happen, we greatly appreciate that you guys have faith in us and our ability to ensure a more enjoyable raid scene for everyone. It's great that you are taking the time to put up that wall-of-text on how the CSR staff feels about raid disputes moving forward. We here at BDA are sure that future FFA mob disputes and agreements can be fully player driven."

I say this because we here at Project 1999 CSR are fully confident that BDA can help facilitate player driven dispute resolutions on FFA mobs without the need for the staff to get involved. We greatly appreciate your cooperation and understanding moving forward, and we will do everything in our power to make everyone cooperate and have a more entertaining open raid environment for all.

I extend my sincere thanks to you, Chest, for taking initiative and planning to spear-head this effort to create a friendlier raid environment among the Project 1999 Raiding Guilds!

[arsenalpow]

How about this, we each knock off the unproductive snark and address the issue at hand. This will allow me to explain the fundamental differences between the two classes and it will save you 10 minutes of crafting a response that I don't even read.

I'll give it the 'ol college try and talk to TMO leadership right here in this thread, they just have to post. I await their thought out position regarding this situation.

[Sirken]

and it will save you 10 minutes of crafting a response that I don't even read.

actually how about this, instead of acting like a cocky, spoiled, little brat, you appreciate the fact that a staff member actually took the time to put 10 minutes into giving you a sincere response, and then you reciprocate that good deed by taking a few minutes to actually read it, before just clicking reply and smashing buttons on the keyboard.

<3
Sirks

[arsenalpow]

actually how about this, instead of acting like a cocky, spoiled, little brat, you appreciate the fact that a staff member actually took the time to put 10 minutes into giving you a sincere response, and then you reciprocate that good deed by taking a few minutes to actually read it, before just clicking reply and smashing buttons on the keyboard.

<3
Sirks
Seriously? Can we cut the fucking trolling? Please highlight the genuine portions Derub's post. If you want to maintain a sense of decorum in this forum then at least give a modicum of respect to the people participating in the discussion (which apparently is only me so far).

Nothing cocky or spoiled about it. I genuinely would like to hammer out a player made agreement with class C to right this ship but in the history of this server there's never been an agreement of that caliber. You're basically asking us to cure cancer. Part of the initial agreement as handed down by Rogean was that this FFA cycle would foster competition. Pullers on spawn points rolling the dice isn't competition.

[Ella`Ella]

Seriously? Can we cut the fucking trolling? Please highlight the genuine portions Derub's post. If you want to maintain a sense of decorum in this forum then at least give a modicum of respect to the people participating in the discussion (which apparently is only me so far).

Nothing cocky or spoiled about it. I genuinely would like to hammer out a player made agreement with class C to right this ship but in the history of this server there's never been an agreement of that caliber. You're basically asking us to cure cancer. Part of the initial agreement as handed down by Rogean was that this FFA cycle would foster competition. Pullers on spawn points rolling the dice isn't competition.

I haven't heard any objections about this amongst the Class-C at this point. I would imagine Class-R should act to the level of Class-C when assembling for FFA targets.

[Sirken]

Seriously? Can we cut the fucking trolling? Please highlight the genuine portions Derub's post. If you want to maintain a sense of decorum in this forum then at least give a modicum of respect to the people participating in the discussion (which apparently is only me so far).

Nothing cocky or spoiled about it. I genuinely would like to hammer out a player made agreement with class C to right this ship but in the history of this server there's never been an agreement of that caliber. You're basically asking us to cure cancer. Part of the initial agreement as handed down by Rogean was that this FFA cycle would foster competition. Pullers on spawn points rolling the dice isn't competition.

not only am i not trolling you in the slightest bit, i'm also not going to read Deru's post to you. go get a drink, scroll up, and read it yourself.

<3
Sirks

[arsenalpow]

I haven't heard any objections about this amongst the Class-C at this point. I would imagine Class-R should act to the level of Class-C when assembling for FFA targets.

Why? As far as FFA targets are concerned you're the minority. Why should the minority dictate the terms?

[arsenalpow]

not only am i not trolling you in the slightest bit, i'm also not going to read Deru's post to you. go get a drink, scroll up, and read it yourself.

<3
Sirks
Since I'm such a helpful person I'll go ahead and highlight the points that were unnecessary and/or downright not constructive for this conversation.

Again, thanks for cherry picking and completely ignoring the rest of the message. Simply quoting a post one of your guild members made in RnF does not invalidate my message, it's points, or it's merits. I will assume your narrow minded comments are simply a side effect of trying to come up with more effective ways of mediating disputes, creating more open lines of communication, and brainstorming creative solutions to problems between all the guilds, so that we can all flourish in a better, more cooperative raid environment!

A more appropriate response here would have been "Thank you, we will do everything in our power to make this happen, we greatly appreciate that you guys have faith in us and our ability to ensure a more enjoyable raid scene for everyone. It's great that you are taking the time to put up that wall-of-text on how the CSR staff feels about raid disputes moving forward. We here at BDA are sure that future FFA mob disputes and agreements can be fully player driven."

I say this because we here at Project 1999 CSR are fully confident that BDA can help facilitate player driven dispute resolutions on FFA mobs without the need for the staff to get involved. We greatly appreciate your cooperation and understanding moving forward, and we will do everything in our power to make everyone cooperate and have a more entertaining open raid environment for all.

I extend my sincere thanks to you, Chest, for taking initiative and planning to spear-head this effort to create a friendlier raid environment among the Project 1999 Raiding Guilds!
That's me, friend of the staff. Doing what I can to lighten your load Sirken!

[Sirken]

Since I'm such a helpful person I'll go ahead and highlight the points that were unnecessary and/or downright not constructive for this conversation.


That's me, friend of the staff. Doing what I can to lighten your load Sirken!

i appreciate you're contribution to the lightening of my load.

[-Catherin-]

How I saw the no DA idol thing was an attempt to create actual competition for raid targets. I think everyone but the class C guilds can agree that sitting two people on a spawn point spam clicking for the FTE and then using soulfires/whirlwind/whatever while the rest of the guild trains the entire zone to get to and then to kill the target is pretty far from competitive. So I'm not sure why it should be allowed for any of us.

I don't see why we can't all agree that the trackers can't be the taggers. It's a simple solution that fixes this problem and actually turns the engage into a RACE.

[Derubael]

Chest, it's pretty simple. You can either:

A) Do exactly as I said. You might have to go read my first two posts in order to find out what that is. This may take several minutes, but the hard part doesn't come until you have to spend 4 hours trying to hammer out an agreement with someone you're having a dispute with.

or

B) Your guild can find someone else to represent them when you have a dispute with another guild. If you refuse to exhaust every option before bringing a dispute to the GM's, or if you are unable to negotiate with another guilds chosen representative, it is in your guilds best interest to not let you be involved in future disputes.

or

C) Never petition another raid issue to the staff again, because this is the way it's going to be from here on out, all guilds, all classes. If you bring a dispute to us and we ask "Have you tried to work this out with Guild X?" and your response is "No." then,

we will be declining to intervene in any situation where a significant amount of discussion hasn't gone on between the two parties in question.

We are 100% serious about this, and I apologize if I made this sound like a request. It is not. Moving forward, you will work together on your own disputes. You will spend more than 10 minutes trying to work issues out. You will either be a part of the problem, or a part of the solution.

If your conduct and attitude in this thread, Chest, is any indication as to how you will be approaching a dispute with an opposing guild, BDA is probably going to have a bad time. If you're not sure how this is supposed to work or what is being asked of you, I suggest thoroughly reading through the posts I've made in this thread. In case you didn't catch on, I was trying to be nice and give you a chance to accept what is happening with some grace. Instead, you crossed your arms, puffed out your chest, and acted like a five year old being told to go make nice with the neighbor boy.

This is not unreasonable. It's not bad, it's not impossible, and it's definitely not something you are incapable of doing. Maybe if you have to take a second to realize that everyone has to work at this, regardless of class, and that no one side dictates all of anything, the raid scene might actually get better. You need to make a real attempt at working with your counter-parts in a raid dispute, exploring all options, and not giving up until it's clear both parties would rather see each other burn than come to an agreement.

If you are unable or unwilling to do this, find someone who will, because the alternative is no longer an option.

Thanks for taking your valuable free-time to read this, and good luck.

[arsenalpow]

So what is the conclusion of all this when all efforts have been exhausted to your satisfaction?

[Derubael]

until it's clear both parties would rather see each other burn than come to an agreement.

[Ella`Ella]

So what is the conclusion of all this when all efforts have been exhausted to your satisfaction?

Define, "satisfaction".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7cHPy04s8&feature=kp

I'll put something in our officer chat and see what the general consensus among us is, Chest.

[Ektar]

As has been the rules on this server for years, you can't engage a target unless you are (reasonably) capable of killing it. This rule was meant for king tranix or the frenzy, and you can't snipe him from someone then stall til your backup arrives; but it's the same for dragons.

Enforcing this rule would solve these major stalling problems. That is, you can't really police a force of 30 on engage having a few added in by the end, but 2 monks engaging with 2 people in zone, then a giant force rushing in is pretty evident. would stop stupid insta-FTE on kunark dragons, too (but create a problem of "we can kill fay with 4 people" "no you can't" problem. But then they'd have to use only those 4 people.)

And this is a rule already not something looking to be implemented

[bktroost]

The issue is that that request exceeds player agreed arrangements. We can mutually agree that whoever has sufficient force to down a mob can lawefully tag a mob, however, how do we track that? Lets assume that all Class R and class C guild agreed you needed at least X amount of players in zone to do that. Why not just make X players sit logged in on a lvl 1 rogue with hide/sneak on the entire duration of a mobs window? If they are anon how does any other player know that Guild A and B actually have X raid capable players in zone.

At sev there was 18 taggers and 9 guild represented. Each guild produced between 20-70 people on his pop in under 2 minutes. That makes the average 45. If there are over 300 people in zone in a span of 2 minutes when a mob pops how can we monitor that Guild A who got the tagg actually only had 20 people before he popped? And if we somehow were able to do that how can players monitor that only those 20 people were the ones who engaged Sev when they did bring him to the camp?

This kind of request goes above the power of any player made agreement and seeks the help of GMs. The best result we can hope for is either a "yes, if players were to agree on this the GMs would enforce something to help keep the racing spirit alive." or " No, GMs are too busy to monitor this kind of activity and everyone needs to think of some other way to keep the racing spirit alive."

(These are thoughts about the about the practicality of making a tagger wait until there is sufficient force.)

~~~~~~~~

In reference to a tagger being zoned out and having to zone in/ log in from a predetermined acceptable point before tagging: Again, how do players monitor that?

We can agree to it fully and happily, but if there is no predetermined area for every mob then again there is no way to monitor and enforce this. Sev for example, can be pulled to TT but a tagger could camp out at CoM, TT, anywhere on the south wall and on the east and west wall after the cliff drop out. We cannot fraps the entire zone.

My proposal is that a tagger must enter from a different zone before they are able to tag. It is easy enough to fraps a ZL or multiple ZLs with See Invis on and any guild could monitor that. No GMs necessary. That would work for CT, Inny, Sev, Trak, Tally, Faydedar, VP, VS, Maestro, Draco... I can't think of a zone or encounter where forcing the tagger to zone in wouldn't work.

I'd love to hear some player feedback about that or any other idea not yet mentioned that does not involve GM participation to monitor this change.

Fortunately, we all understand there is a need for change.

[Dentalplan]

Stall tactics like this are definitely not in the best interest of actual competition for FFA spawns. Even if it's not explicitly against the rules, it accomplishes the exact same goal that DA stalling did before it was outlawed. I don't see any reason why one should be allowed and the other shouldn't.

I agree with Catherin that the best way to manage this would be to prohibit trackers from tagging the mob. Requiring someone who wasn't in zone at the time of the pop to get the initial FTE would go a long way in bringing back some actual racing for mobs.

[Erati]

The biggest problem with having trackers zone in to tag is its a race of:

1. Connection speed ( who zones faster )
2. Run speed ( bards can only go tag now. Your bard isnt online? you lose.)
3. Chaotically controlled luck ( I know things can get chaotic now, but imagine 70 players flailing about through EJ trying to get the attention of the pixel dragon all equipped with instant clicky mallets or javs )


I agree that things can be improved, however I think rather than one overarching general rule that fits well for one encounter ( Inny) and is meh for others ( Outdoor dragons) there should be room for in general 'server engagement rules' for specific encounters.

There should be 'common sense' things like, you cannot pull Inny to the zone in to engage him ( thank god this isnt done anymore).

Or how everyone universally knows that if your Fay pull starts to take longer than 6-7 min you are probably kiting him which is a no no.

We can tailor small little adjustments to these encounters so everyone can enjoy them more as that is basically what we all want here. We want an enjoyable game.

People get their enjoyment from different aspects, so most will never agree on one singular thing. This is why its hard to put a black and white rule in place to cover so many different types of encounters all with basically a completely different strats depending on the raid.

[bktroost]

Connection speed plays a significant role in many things (lev and island jumping in sky for example).

Bards are used for most pulling anyway, its much easier to pull a dragon to a camp if you have bard MR song and selos playing.

Once someone has FTE it will be their without a doubt. The unsure nature of monks tagging, whirlwinding/Soulfire clicking is not going to be an issue. You will have to zone 2 people in and have them assist in the tag due to charming. I can only see this being less chaotic now. Also, keep the boundaries in place. Have only 2 reps allowed to be designated taggers as it is now. turns 70 people to 18 people, exactly as we have it now.

[Erati]

Have only 2 reps allowed to be designated taggers as it is now. turns 70 people to 18 people, exactly as we have it now.

Well if they only limit it to 2 reps running out to tag as we have with trackers sitting at the spawn point now I could see merits to this form of engagement rules.

I guess when I envisioned the removal of the trackers being able to tag, I envisioned ANYONE being able to zone in and run there. I didnt think to limit that number too since that would be very hard to police.

Its a good thought tho. Worthy of discussion.

[doraf]

All the class R guilds work out their issues. We have a board dedicated to communication within our class. TMO and IB were trading petitions/fraps and negotiating early release from suspensions.

Decreeing that we're supposed to work with each other to come to an amicable solution is a noble idea but if all the class R guilds can work out our issues and TMO/IB can't play nicely, what makes you think that we'll all just figure out these issues together?

TMO's contention is that it wasn't really a pure stall. Someone immediately grabbed FTE after the other guy got DTed, then someone else got charmed, then someone else flopped, then charm broke and that guy ended up with the final FTE. So for the entire duration of Inny spawning there were 3-4 monks herp derping around jostling for FTE while the zerg rushed up to his room. Please please please explain to me how that's any semblance of competition.

I hate losing too, but it happens sometimes.

[Snackies]

I hate losing too, but it happens sometimes.

Not the place for these comments at all.

To everyone else, as Unbrella mentioned earlier, we'll discuss this internally and see what the general consenus is on the comments/ideas that are brought up here.

[bktroost]

Not the place for these comments at all.

To everyone else, as Unbrella mentioned earlier, we'll discuss this internally and see what the general consenus is on the comments/ideas that are brought up here.
+1 awesome snackums. I actually enjoyed our texas shoot off, but i think we'd all have more fun if we made it more of a race. New mechanics means new challenges to become the best at.

[Derubael]

Just so we're all clear, stalling an engage is still against the rules - but there is no hard limit on Soulfire use during an engage like there is for invulnerability spells.

What exactly constitutes a 'stall' during a raid engagement can be hard to quantify, but the general rule we go by when reviewing a situation is 'if it looks like a stall, smells like a stall, and tastes like a stall, it's probably a stall.'

If you guys would like to come together and set a player agreed upon rule on the number of soulfire charges allowed to be burned during a raid engage, we'd be happy to enforce that.

[phiren]

When someone engages a raid target, and has absolutely no intention of killing it, but 'delaying' until help arrives to finish it off... is that not a stall?

I understand that this is acceptable behavior, and EVERY guild is entitled to do this, and this is the way it's always been done... I've just never understood the justification for how it's not a 'stall'.

At least with Sev / Fay / Talendor you can use the excuse 'Oh I'm pulling it, not engaging' (Which is equally debatable).

Are these tactics competitive? Yes
Is there racing involved? Depends on how you look at it...
-Is it a race to the target? Not really.
-Is it a race to get the FTE with 1 of your 2 'trackers'? Yes

As long as every guild is allowed the same tactics.. I don't REALLY think one guild has an advantage over another.

If I (and AG) had a vote -- we would definitely vote along the lines of a "First in Force + FTE". That just seems more like a fun raid scene than leaving it in the hands of 1-2 'trackers'.

The current rules/tactics do benefit the bigger guilds because they can just camp alts everywhere. I do think the "First in Force" would definitely increase competition for the bigger guilds and level the playing field for these FFA targets.

If we did go to a "First in Force" -- the only thing that would happen is guilds would need to keep a force camped in the whole time instead of switching upon pop via vent screaming and batphoning. So instead of 2 people sitting in EJ for 12 hours... guilds would need to have 20+ people sitting in EJ for 12 hours.

Another crazy concept for Fay / Talendor / Sev -- that will get blasted -- is to make the mob actually spawn at different spots. Knowing the EXACT pixel that these mobs spawn on is part of the problem.

It's not classic? Variance isn't either ... but it was implemented for situations like this I imagine.


~Phiren
Azure Guard

[Erati]

I do like the idea of adding some randomness to the spawn nodes. It should cause less face tracking/pet parking on spawn points.

I dunno if that really opens up things all that much but it should be a pretty simple change to implement that would improve the outdoor dragon "competition".

[Artaenc]

While it appears that we are still sorting this out I am assuming that it is still acceptable for a warrior+cleric+souldfires to face track and get FTE and the rest of the raid force at the zone in run in to help kill VS?

Still acceptable for monks to port into hate first and pull Inny to the zone in while the rest of the crew is still porting up?