FTE Shouts: Rethinking Their Mechanics and Issue

[Frieza_Prexus]

With the relatively recent (Belated? Delayed? Past Due?) promise of FTE shouts coming soon (hopefully), I've been wondering if it might be beneficial to have the shouts occur under different circumstances for different mobs.

The Current Problem: It seems that many of the participants in raid encounters disapprove of the tedious and exacting nature of the FTE game. Indeed, various strategies have grown out of such a rule set specifically in order to maximize the current FTE scheme that requires only one person. DA tanking, FTE sniping with Antonian Javelins, and other such tactics, while currently legal, are not truly a perfect device for determining a true good faith engage with intent to kill.

The Proposed Solution (Read: not perfect, but less bad than it is now...): Specific mobs should only give their FTE shout when engaged by a specific number of players. For example, Trakanon might shout the name of the guild that is the first to have 4 players on his aggro list. Venril Sathir might require 3 or 4 (Also, fix him he was way deadlier See: Bugs).

The Reasoning: By forcing guilds to have more than one person on the aggro list, you create a situation where the mob is far less mobile, you force the guild to commit vital resources, and if someone wants to snap engage it's going to be very difficult to perform any kind of stall. This type of regime will, in my belief, move us closer to a more classic raid situation to ensure that FTE is claimed by people trying to kill the mob at the time of the engage as opposed to buying time for the engage to kill the mob.

Problems: Not Classic. Also, the current FTE scheme is very well entrenched. It may be difficult to move away from it in a manner that satisfies the general raiding population. Also, it may be difficult to determine what number of people is required for each mob.

For example, how many should aggro Gore before she shouts FTE? Should VS take more or less than Trak in terms of numbers to trigger the shout? This can be addressed in a number of ways. I would first suggest to use some common sense. Cazic Thule might require only a few to trigger, whereas it might be a good idea to put Trak at 4 or 5 because the goal is to FORCE guilds to commit to the engage, not pussyfoot around while people log in. In the case of CT, when you engage him there is no stalling due to the demanding nature of the kill. Trak and VS are quite a different story with DA classes able to stall them for nearly minutes at a time.

Conclusion: I submit that if mobs issue FTE shouts, only when a critical mass of players have aggroed them, that you will see cleaner engages with far less FTE sniping, which, is probably a good thing. While some mobs, say outdoor dragons, may not need such a shout (indeed, perhaps those mobs should have an "aggro shout" to indicate the pull has begun AND an FTE shout to indicate the engage?)

The goal is to force guilds to engage when they have a kill force. Under such a scheme stalling would be difficult, if not out right impossible. A single DA character cannot tank if the other 3 engagers are not also DA (due to the mechanics of DA). Who can afford to commit 4 clerics to double DA stall Trak? Such a system will force good faith engages and encourage straight forward play that does not rely on pinch timing, feign death, and Hail-Mary javelin throws.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Xasten, first of all, I wanted to say that I always enjoy your level-headed, rational, and well-thought out posts, so for that I commend you. Not speaking on behalf of my guild, I rather like your proposed mechanic of forcing a guild/raid to commit to the target and then a shout from the target identifying the first to commit (FTC).

For the outdoor dragons that are typically pulled, to prevent jockeying for aggro /ping-ponging during the entire pull, I would say an FTE shout is needed to identify who tagged first (different from the vague aggro message currently used which does not identify a player). The only remaining issue would be "is that dragon being kited"?

Would you propose a generally agreed upon timer (3 mins? 5 mins? varies by target?) between FTE shout and FTC shout after which the FTE shout is reset and the target is open to being yanked from the puller? It may change where raids set up camp to pull to, but it will take the guesswork out of who was ready to commit to the mob first and simplify encounter log review and intervention after-the-fact by GMs, who I'm sure have better things to do.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Would you propose a generally agreed upon timer (3 mins? 5 mins? varies by target?) between FTE shout and FTC shout after which the FTE shout is reset and the target is open to being yanked from the puller? It may change where raids set up camp to pull to, but it will take the guesswork out of who was ready to commit to the mob first and simplify encounter log review and intervention after-the-fact by GMs, who I'm sure have better things to do.

Honestly, I don't know. The problem of kiting out door dragons is something that's really got me baffled with regards to how to code something to prevent, or at least strongly discourage it.

One idea I had, very similar to yours, was to time how long it takes to pull a mob from its current spot to the normal camp. Say, ogre island for Faydedar. Find the fastest possible time it takes to pull him from his normal pathing area and add 45 seconds to it. If that time is exceeded then he does some sort of shout/disengage and informs people that he's on the market (just like you suggest) and cannot be engaged by the kiting guild until some further event (say the 2nd guild kites or something).

Of course, this solution is full of holes. You can move your camp, if you need more time, just camp out at a closer spot, "pre-kite" him to a corner of the zone. Etc. Etc.

To your specific suggestion, I think generally agreed timers for each mob could work, but I'm not sure that would be a huge improvement, the timers would have to be well-calibrated to account for different camps, roaming dragons, and so on. It's a bit of a pickle, and it might overly complicate it.

On the other hand, forcing a very specific and known timer on a pulling guild might provide a lot of security for the raid scene if everyone knows exactly how it works and the rules are clearly spelled out.

Back to the main idea, I'm not sure that Outdoor dragons and kites are a HUGE problem. At least not so much that they outright beg for some sort of modification from the current set up.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Back to the main idea, I'm not sure that Outdoor dragons and kites are a HUGE problem. At least not so much that they outright beg for some sort of modification from the current set up.

Good point, I think there's enough cinematography going on with FRAPS during outdoor dragon pulls to deter even letting a competing guild perceive even for a moment that you are kiting.

For the mobs you're looking to focus on, I don't see any problems with the FTC mechanic. Logging in the right classes, final buffing, and the strategy around when to commit certainly makes the encounter far more interesting and competitive than just FTE.






I'm only half-joking because I know it would be poorly received, but too bad you couldn't take that a step further and make it so FTC goes to the first X people engaged on the target that did NOT log in from the same zone as the target. ;)

[Splorf22]

An idea I had previously, which no one really liked but I could never figure out why, is that whichever guild can get a player summoned first has the engage. Certainly for Trakanon it would work well I would think. And there can be no doubts in the logs.

[YendorLootmonkey]

An idea I had previously, which no one really liked but I could never figure out why, is that whichever guild can get a player summoned first has the engage. Certainly for Trakanon it would work well I would think. And there can be no doubts in the logs.

1) Have someone nearby just above low HP aggro range.
2) Wait for other guild to get mob to 96%
3) Summonee nukes himself into low HP aggro to get summoned.

[Splorf22]

1) Have someone nearby just above low HP aggro range.
2) Wait for other guild to get mob to 96%
3) Summonee nukes himself into low HP aggro to get summoned.

It's a reasonable counterargument, Yendor, although I think it's not as easy as it sounds. I suppose with mallets and such you could consider it 'FTE at 97%' but the big point is all this DA tanking/stalling BS goes away.

[Clark]

Even though fte shouts aren't classic theyd save some headaches I'd imagine. Not sure which side I'm in support for though.

[YendorLootmonkey]

but the big point is all this DA tanking/stalling BS goes away.

What are the holes in Xasten's "first to commit" idea we're not seeing?

[falkun]

First to Engage shouts (when implemented) will just remove the GM/CSR from the "FTE argument". Its automating a process that already exists.

As for the most recent example, the shout would have had the added benefit that TMO would have known, without a doubt, that FE had FTE and could have disengaged.

I'm not saying FTC is the wrong answer, but this server has adapted to FTE for a while now, and shouting will already address a current problem. Can we give this new system (whenever implemented) time to adapt and learn the implications before we try another new, untested method?

The server should have minimal coded rules, and maximum inter-guild communication. Its not the developers faults we can't agree to anything more than the absolute minimum game mechanics/server rules, we are at fault as players.

[Tecmos Deception]

The problem of kiting out door dragons is something that's really got me baffled with regards to how to code something to prevent, or at least strongly discourage it.

Make bosses summon at 100%.

[falkun]

Make bosses summon at 100%.

I would hate to kill Faydedar in the water, water combat is just not practical. Then add in Fear and Faydedar gets a whole lot more difficult.

[radditsu]

I would hate to kill Faydedar in the water, water combat is just not practical. Then add in Fear and Faydedar gets a whole lot more difficult.


everybody has to do it corinav style imo.

[Splorf22]

What are the holes in Xasten's "first to commit" idea we're not seeing?

Well the obvious one is that summoning and the appropriate messages are already coded in, while multiple FTE shouts are not, and may require more coding server side than the simple scripts Nilbog is talking about.

But of course I think Xasten has a reasonable idea as well.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Why not just require 15 people (a raid force) on a target's aggro list for FTE and FTE shout?

I considered that. The exact # required to trigger the shout can be tweaked. The point is to force groups to commit. Some mobs like VS and Fay can be done with under 15.

It also occurred to me that this is a far more practical way to achieve the situation the GMs wanted some months back when they desired for you to kill draco on his spawn and not pull him. While this would allow mobs to still be pulled, it is not without risk.

[Anesthia]

Make bosses flag you for PvP.

[kotton05]

I'd like the shout, but what im curious about is...

1. dragon charm, he will shout blah blah has my aggro, charm then reset... will he emote a disengage or what?

2. CT can death touch like 4 people, so even if the first to engage has a shout, he's insta gibbed no longer on aggro list...

3. making 15+ for fte would make us kill fay in water right on spawn pt, hell all the dragons for that matter.

[YendorLootmonkey]

First to Engage shouts (when implemented) will just remove the GM/CSR from the "FTE argument". Its automating a process that already exists.

As for the most recent example, the shout would have had the added benefit that TMO would have known, without a doubt, that FE had FTE and could have disengaged.

I agree that an FTE shout solves *most* of the issues (i.e. disengaging a raid knowing the opposing force got FTE and letting them sink or swim), however Xasten's solution addresses stall tactics like someone grabbing FTE, confirmed via FTE shout, but then DA tanking for 18 seconds. Or a Donals BP cleric and a warrior stalling for 3-5 minutes on VS until the rest of the raid force can get there/logged in (I suppose a group of 4-5 people can still stall, but this at least ups the ante on the number of people you have to instantly log in to claim VS.)

Either system of automated acknowledgement of rights to the mob is better than what we have now. The strategy/game theory is different when you can't tell who has FTE... Guild A has 15 ppl on Trak, Guild B has 30 ppl on Trak... Guild B has no choice but to engage ASAP, which favors Guild A on a mob they would most likely fail on, because Guild B can't take the chance that Guild A can pull it off with 15.

But if Guild B knew they could disengage and camp aggro after a FTE shout awarded the mob to Guild A, there is a decent chance Guild A will wipe and Guild B will get their shot. So raid encounters become a little bit more about mobilization, even if mobilization here just means "who can log in the fastest at the spawn".

[falkun]

But if Guild B knew they could disengage and camp aggro after a FTE shout awarded the mob to Guild A, there is a decent chance Guild A will wipe and Guild B will get their shot. So raid encounters become a little bit more about mobilization, even if mobilization here just means "who can log in the fastest at the spawn".

This is granted via the incoming FTE shouts, you won't need FTC shouts for this functionality. I completely agree that Guild_B, once committed, pretty much has to stick on the raid mob currently, pre-FTE shout implementation. I anticipate many more disengages (and likely wipes) following the FTE shout implementation. FTC shouts bring in a bunch of new variables and rules to lawyer and hash out. For instance, guilds may disagree how many bodies represents an engaged force or how long it takes to pull a mob. FTE shouts, an extension/automation of the already existing FTE metric, minimizes additional creation of game mechanics/server rules to govern the player-base.

[porigromus]

Make bosses flag you for PvP.

Probably best suggestion right here. Implement this for boss fights and then let the players handle disputes via pvp

[Frieza_Prexus]

One issue that occurred to me was what if a guild has one of those 4 engagers die? Do they lose FTE? The solution is simple, I think. Once FTE has been achieved, if the number of players from that committed guild goes under 4 but remains above 1, the mob will reissue FTE after five seconds unless the number of engaged people again climbs to 4 or more. If the number goes to 0 at any time, the mob is, obviously, reset for all purposes.

Obviously the numbers be tweaked again, but the premise remains the same. Under such a scheme it is technically possible to stall by feeding the dragon a player every 5 seconds, but you'd run out of snacks to give it really really fast.

Probably best suggestion right here. Implement this for boss fights and then let the players handle disputes via pvp

Undoubtedly exciting and simple, but beyond the scope of this discussion.

[falkun]

One issue that occurred to me was what if a guild has one of those 4 engagers die? Do they lose FTE? The solution is simple, I think. Once FTE has been achieved, if the number of players from that committed guild goes under 4 but remains above 1, the mob will reissue FTE after five seconds unless the number of engaged people again climbs to 4 or more. If the number goes to 0 at any time, the mob is, obviously, reset for all purposes.

Why code all of this logic when you could simply wait for the opposing force to wipe and aggro to reset completely? This would also enable a second force to engage before the boss' HP reset to 100%, which is not the kind of engage I feel the server developers should advocate. If guild_A wipes to a mob at 1%, but the FTC hand-off occurs such that guild_B picks up the mob while at least one person from guild_A was still aggroed, guild_B could be awarded a rightful kill for doing 1% of the work. This may not matter much in Kunark, but has the potential to become an issue in Velious with 100kHP+ mobs. Once you have FTE/FTC, its yours until the mob dies or everyone is removed from his aggro list and HPs reset.

[Metallikus]

I propose guilds adopt a raid force respect program. If you have 10 people in zone, you can SHOUT "10 rule of respect for X" where X is the raid mob in question. If you shout out for respect, all other guilds can't engage that mob for 10 min. at the end fo the 10 min, if the mob has not been engaged (not stalled, actual engage) your guild has forfeited its chance at the mob until it has died and spawned again. This would allow almost any guild to compete as 10 min and 10 people are not hard to acheive at any level of raiding and it prevents all blatant shenanigens employed by the top guilds to train, greif, fte snipe, ect and gives us a more civilized end game raid scene. During the first guilds respect of 10 min, any other guild arriving can shout the same thing to get on the next ten min interval if the first guild wipes or fails to engage but must not embark on the other raids area of set up or in between them and the mob in question.

Xasten's idea only makes the rules lawyering more complicated and will just end up breeding more ridiculous zerg strategies to win the rules lawyering game.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Xasten's idea only makes the rules lawyering more complicated and will just end up breeding more ridiculous zerg strategies to win the rules lawyering game.

Actually, such a scheme demonstrably reduces rules lawyering in the same manner as simple FTE shouts, and it has the added bonus stopping stall tactics.

[Metallikus]

why can't you guys respect a guild's raid force present for 10 goddamn min? bring the server into the civilized era and away from the douchebag fte era.

[Metallikus]

Actually, such a scheme demonstrably reduces rules lawyering in the same manner as simple FTE shouts, and it has the added bonus stopping stall tactics.

false, all your suggestion demonstrates is how retarded FTE is in the first place and how much rule lawyering is involved that you propose to code in a bunch of un-needed non -classic game mechanics.

Show some respect for the rest of the server, and try to come up with a solution that isn't micromanaging the douchebag raid scene between the two top zerg guilds.

[falkun]

Actually, such a scheme demonstrably reduces rules lawyering in the same manner as simple FTE shouts, and it has the added bonus stopping stall tactics.

But it also has the unintended side-effect of providing legitimate kills to guilds that do not put all the effort in (legitimate engage before the mob resets). This is the very problem you are attempting to solve with FTC notifications, so you've created additional code that doesn't solve the problem.

I do not have a better suggestion, but this suggestion does not meet its intended goal, so I cannot support it.

Show some respect for the rest of the server, and try to come up with a solution that isn't micromanaging the douchebag raid scene between the two top zerg guilds.

This is the core of the issue, albeit stated in a rude manner. Additional game mechanics/server rules to lawyer is not the issue. Inter-guild communication (or lack there-of) is the problem with our raid scene. "Damn it all for the pixels" is not the chant we should be shouting as we run into battle.

Also, by forcing FTC as a "higher right to loot" than FTE, you've now made it more difficult for a raid to disengage because instead of possibly only having 1-2 persons engaged erroneously, everyone is running at the mob attempting to get to "first 4" on FTC. Disengaging/feinting engage will become a less viable raid tactic.

[kotton05]

who ever gets fte, it shouts their name, end of story. no fancy rules or stuff. otherwise dont do it, just makes my head spin reading what xasten is trying to make points about.

[kotton05]

it's also not hard to /assist the target and see who its targeting. only real time fte shouts were needed was when poopsocking happened, which after last patch seems to be a thing of the past.