Trackers in Agro Range of Raid Targets. Severilous last night, needs community input

[-Catherin-]

Make a raid discussion post and let the community decide their guilt/innocence and subsequent punishment if necessary.

By post I mean new thread. Since this effects the entire community rather than just your two guilds I believe it should be addressed by everyone.


This is a petition that went over the course of last night while Severilous was in window. This is the current stance of the GMs after the last disaster FFA Severilous.

Hail my fellow Norrathians,

We all know that in the heat of battle things can sometimes not go exactly as planned, and if someone sees somebody else do something, they immediately try to match it or one up it in order to maintain a competitive edge.

That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations.

Doing this, figuratively takes a big old dump on the entire purpose for the Staff telling the players we don’t want them poopsocking the raid spawn locations. We also do not want KoS trackers to be able to get afk FTE’s, as we feel this is more in line with using autofire, than it is in the spirit of the rules set forth, rules that, I will remind you, were all agreed on by the players.

Consider this a warning to all guilds, the next time this happens, you can expect a guild suspension. It’s something we take very seriously, and something we do not want to see repeated.

The loots from today’s Severilous will be deleted because the first two guilds on the FTE list were on the raid spawn location, and because the guild that ended up killing and taking the loots did not have a proper FTE, as they did not allow the mob to reset before engaging it.

<3
The Staff


This did not happen last night. TMO/IB began within agro range of Severilous. When asked to move and why, IB responded appropriately, while TMO responded by actually sitting directly on the spawn point. Their leaders response is "prove it" while their member's response was to harass me in and out of game.


Your screenshot fails to show my members response to you and also fails to show a /loc. This is deceptive and inappropriate. Be professional, please.

I already attempted to do that umbrella. See above response. And here are more shots for you.



http://i.imgur.com/U9GTNxc.jpg

IB properly responded. but this is TMO after 3 more hours.

http://i.imgur.com/l9guO5t.jpg

No response so I make my way up to the spawn point to see what is going on.

http://i.imgur.com/bdiMXN9.jpg

wait, isn't that one of the same TMOs that I asked to move three hours before? Sirken made the stance on this perfectly clear. you don't track from the agro range of a Dragon. This was violated. TMO ended up with the kill.

I cannot say that Taken would have gotten this FTE regardless, but rules were violated. We respected the rules rather than potentially deal with a repeat in history, and now we will never know.

My last post in the currently ongoing petition of the situation:

bump.

These screenshots show a period of time of time over three hours where I asked TMO to honor the raid expectations and follow the rules by removing tier trackers from agro range. Their response was to not only not leave agro range, but to go and sit directly on the spawn.

Your requests to try to handle raid disputes between one another has been followed. And as you can see in raid discussion, unbrella's stance is for me to prove it. Other TMO members have responded by harassing me. example below.

http://i.imgur.com/CZ7AWUB.jpg



These screenshots here span three hours, have a loc, and anyone can put the pieces together and see that this is the spawn point. I believe this is pretty sufficient "proof". I also believe I have done my part to attempt to to work it out with TMO. It was a simple request. follow the raid rules and move. IB managed to comprehend that. TMO did not.

I am not saying Taken would have gotten the FTE on this regardless, but we will never know that know due to TMO's violation of the raid expectations. If BDA can be suspended from a Class R Nagafen purely off of our interpretation of thier *intent* when they engaged him under 20%. Then this petition should be enough to show that TMO is clearly in violation. I would think similar consequences should be necessary and that their loot being deleted and having to sit out the next FFA Severilous would be acceptable.


Thanks



The response:

Make a raid discussion post and let the community decide their guilt/innocence and subsequent punishment if necessary.

By post I mean new thread. Since this effects the entire community rather than just your two guilds I believe it should be addressed by everyone.


Feel free to screenshot my post here to show our current stance on the situation.


http://i.imgur.com/9Tm4szc.jpg



SO, since this was a FFA situation and the decision will impact everyone, they have asked for your input. Your turn, community.

[arsenalpow]

Why should the community be forced to decide a punishment? Not even trolling, serious question.

Catherin pointed out an infraction, IB once made aware of the infraction moved. TMO was defiant and trolled in response, never moved, and benefitted from it. Sirken's statement is well known, TMO has raided plenty of times to know this. Why should blatant disregard for a known rule need tacit approval from the community?

I think the complete disregard even after the dialogue shows a behavior pattern that we've seen so many times before. Levy a strong punishment to discourage this type of behavior and to set an example going forward that this type of crap won't be tolerated by the staff or community.

[-Catherin-]

Our mages were with all the other mages when Sev spawned. I'm sure your own trackers can confirm this. Please take down or amend your post in the raid section. Thanks.

I will not, but I will include your PM to me here. And if you guys can respond with some of your own proof that will help. Don't forget to include pictures and locs, and appropriate responses.

if this is the case then great. however this doesn't change that you had to be constantly policied due to your constant attempts to bend the rules.

[-Catherin-]

Sorry I cannot respond in this forum yet. Still waiting on that.

Were our mages on the spawn when it popped?
No. Not even in jav range.


Here are logs from our FTE'er who is a bard with selos running. As you can see it takes him 4 seconds from being summoned before he can jav the dragon, and his first attempt to jav shows him out of range.

[Sun Oct 19 00:31:06 2014] You have been summoned!
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:07 2014] Benjy begins to cast a spell.
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:07 2014] Your song ends.
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:09 2014] Your target is too far away, get closer!
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:09 2014] You cannot see your target.
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:10 2014] Severilous says 'Very cute, mortal. Please, please, don't kill me. Hah! Tell me, are you immune to poison? I certainly hope so. I am.'
[Sun Oct 19 00:31:10 2014] Severilous engages Yibz!

From what I understand, it took time before our trackers were able to get confirmation that they did have to move off of spawn despite being factioned. Never the less, they were off the spawn for a significant amount of time before the dragon spawned.

So I had to police your trackers for over 3 hours because TMO is ignorant of the raid rules? im sorry but I do not really buy that.

[-Catherin-]

Despite what you may think of us. In the middle of the night on a Saturday, we're grateful for anyone who volunteers to track. Sev is low priority. He may be tracked by apps, new members, people returning to the game who may not be 100% aware of every little nuance in the raid rules. Some of these rules are not intuitive.

Yes, ideally they should be aware of the rules. But none were broken this time.

So your trackers were apps and/or recruits and people who had just returned to the game, who volunteered to track, and your guild did not make sure that they were aware of the rules?

I am not sure how you guys operate but when we get a new person out there tracking we make sure they know what the rules are. It is your responsibility to make sure your members are following rules. This rule was the result of a very public situation on a previous FFA sev. This is no excuse. There is no ideally about it, you are expected to know the rules. especially with a crystal clear rule like:


That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations.





If your trackers are on the spawn point of Severilous how is that not a violation of the rules? You should have been disqualified from the encounter immediately when you did not respond to the request to move.

[Argh]

From what I can tell the 'no trackers on spawn point' is with regard only to KoS trackers, as this could be used to get afk FTEs similar to autofire (although the FTE would be illegal, it 'disrupts' the ensuing legal FTE/raid).

If they were KoS trackers then something inline with a warning would be fitting punishment. This is far less egregious than KS'ing a mob which you do not have FTE on, and one warning for a first time infraction followed by a suspension is the standard punishment used for that.

If they were non-KoS trackers then I fail to see anything disruptive, and no punishment is in order.

Also, everyone in that screenshot is in aggro range including you.

[-Catherin-]

We know the rules and we do educate our trackers. If there's ever a misunderstanding that leads to a situation like this, it isn't the end of the world. They should notice that they are incorrect, and fix their mistake. Which they did.

So you say it wasn't their intentions to break any rules. Okay.


Let's look at it this way then:

Awhile back, BDA jumped on a ready to flee Nagafen (about 14% health) that was FFA and taken got the FTE on.

You guys petitioned it, and it went on for months. Taken and BDA had no collaboration on that raid and BDAs decision to get in a few hits in the end was there own. It was not their intentions to "assist" Taken on the Dragon to keep it from you. The Dragon was already dying. We were actually in compete competition with each other.

TMO asserts that it was collaboration and one cannot know their "intent". GMs rule that intent doesn't matter, when a rule is broken a rule is broken and you must accept punishment for that, regardless of your intent.

BDA was required to surrender their next Class R Nagafen.

I do not care what your intent was. You claim it was all in innocence but even if it was that does not matter. BDA says the Nagafen situation was in complete innocence too.

You broke a clear rule. Even after being told about said rule and being asked to move, it was at least 3 hours before you responded to that request, as I had to ask again when you moved CLOSER to the spawn. That is the bottom line of it.

Please have one of your own guild representatives post for you. I have said my piece and everyone else can decide what they feel is appropriate.

[-Catherin-]

Also, everyone in that screenshot is in aggro range including you.


Please explain to me how I am to gather any sort of evidence on what is going on if I do not get close enough for a moment to do so?

[Ella`Ella]

I'm not sure what your logs or screenshots are even showing here and I'm not sure what kind of a case you are trying to make.

Your screen shots have one log of a loc that you're standing on with our mages significantly further away - indeterminable distance from sev spawn point. Simply circling an area in a picture doesn't show much. Also, you are claiming that this went on for several hours, however you haven't provided a single /time. Also, the person who was on our mage claims that they did respond to you.

If this was a concern, my members have no business taking directives from leaders or members of any other guild. They take instructions from our leadership. If members took orders from other guilds' officers, I think TMO would have a few more Crowns' of Rile =P. At no point did you comply with the repeated GM request to resolve the conflict with the guild in question. You have a screenshot of you sending one member of ours a /tell and then nothing again for what you claim to be 3 hours.

In addition to this, there are a couple other elements at play here. For one, you yourself are on the spawn point! And, you're not factioned, whereas our mages our. If there was a chance that Sev spawned while you were building a case against us, you would have gotten aggro yourself and our mages wouldn't, which invalidates your whole case. You were also putting yourself at risk face tracking. If this is really something you are pursuing, I suppose that means we need to petition you for being on the spawn point as well? As a Bard, if you were this concerned, you could have Bind Sight on a target to keep watch.

There is also the fact that our mages were no where near the spawn point when Sev spawned, in fact, they weren't even in Jav distance (significantly further than body aggro).

We would appreciate if you abide by the GM policy of reaching out to guild leadership before filing petitions. Especially where there are more facts to be considered than you are presenting.

Edit: Also, the story I am getting is that Ferment did respond to you telling you that they had moved and then asked if where they moved to was fine. Ferment was showing Pnokk where the spawn point was when you immediately sent them a tell. You were also there (on the spawn point) when they arrived and then you backed up. They moved just a couple minutes later. Also, I believe IB and the other trackers can confirm that for the 9 hours preceding Sev's spawn, all the trackers, including TMOs were on the mountain away from the spawn point. Your screenshot is taken about 10 hours earlier. Pnokk, the other mage in your screenshot also was not on when Sev spawned he logged shortly after your /tell (about 9 hours previous to the spawn). I'm getting a log of when he camped to try and put some of your misguided timeline together.

However as a side note to, 'prove it' - as Alarti can tell you, burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative if you're really trying to press me for evidence. You need to prove that your claim in all of this is valid and screenshots with timestamps ALONG with logs (not separate of logs) would be a good start. You could also show some screens of our mages responding to you, which frankly, they don't need to do - you need to contact leadership regarding issues.

[-Catherin-]

ah forget it, deleted this post. Since none of the other guilds are saying anything this isn't going to go anywhere past you and me bickering back and forth. I'll be happy to know that you guys get it and don't try to do this again.

[Ella`Ella]

ah forget it, deleted this post. Since none of the other guilds are saying anything this isn't going to go anywhere past you and me bickering back and forth. I'll be happy to know that you guys get it and don't try to do this again.

Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention and let me know if I can help you with anything else.

[Artaenc]

ah forget it, deleted this post. Since none of the other guilds are saying anything this isn't going to go anywhere past you and me bickering back and forth. I'll be happy to know that you guys get it and don't try to do this again.

I was on vacation and just saw this. I expect this kind of treatment when we do the exact same thing. Otherwise this is a crystal clear violation of the rules. I would say two weeks raiding suspension should fix this issue and if they try to rule lawyer it some more then take the time to look at the logs to get the mage tracker's position and add one more week per hour he/she was there.

This type of negligence of the rules is making it very difficult to enjoy playing on this server especially when guilds get away with it.

[Drakakade]

If Taken petitioned TMO for violating a clearly stated raid policy, then the responsibility for adjudicating the decision rests with the GMs who have more tools at their disposal to judge the validity of the petition than a grab bag of C and R guilds with various levels of asymmetric information.

Presumably, said GMs will also decide on whether enough evidence has been presented or the defense is adequate, and I would think any punishment would also be tailored to whether a guild had sufficient raid experience to know better or not. For example, a hapless new guild to the server might inadvertently break the rules and be granted leniency, as opposed to a more experienced guild with a robust working knowledge of the existing rules and one working to foster a better raiding environment.

Again, thank-you, Staff and Devs for P99.

[Derubael]

We don't have access to any additional information than what has been presented here by Catherin. Based on the evidence provided we would be unable to take any action against TMO. Screenshots provide little usable evidence for us, and we will rarely be comfortable handing out a guild wide suspension without significant additional evidence to support the petitioners claim. In this particular case the screenshots provided and varioous logs simply don't build enough of a case to prove a violation.

I will also add that violating a rule in order to catch someone violating a rule is generally NOT recommended, something that has come up in the past. In this particular case it wouldn't have been overly difficult to take these screenshots away from the spawnpoint (or a fraps!!). It's important to make every effort to follow the rules as closely as possible, even to catch other rulebreajers. If you
are unable to record the event yourself, please petition and at the least a Guide will usually be
available to observe and then relay their findings to the GM staff. You should never put yourself in a compromising position in order to catch a violation. Granted, in this case I would hardly consider Catherine's actions to be a violation, but the point should be clearly made that you put yourself at risk by breaking a rule to catch violaters. Two wrongs dont make a right.*

Lastly, it is up for debate as to whether or not sitting at or near sevs spawn point is a violation. Someone would need to speak with Sirken directly (likely something we will discuss tomorrow) to get a clear answer, as he holds the Lead-CSR position and the statement was atrributed to him in the first place. I only glanced briefly at what he said but I took it as more of a suggestion to keep guilds from getting in trouble rather than a hard rule. The rule itself being that trackers cannot FTE, which I do not believe was violated. This is my personal take on the situation, and likeky Sirken's intention, as we prefer to limit the number of restrictions we place on where players may stand when waiting for a spawn, the exception being the poopsock rules we currently have in place - we have always wanted to avoid that as much as possible.

[Derubael]

*Yes this is cheesey/corny, and we use this phrase too often but it is 100% true.

As a side note, I had suggested to Catherine to bring this to Raid Discussion to stay consistent with our stance of allowing the community to work disputes out on its own. For issues that affect all guilds - such as potential violations on FFA mobs - I will encourage these disputes to be discussed here on this forum whenever possible. The goal of this is twofold - in cases of clear violations with suffucient evidence, the community should be able to agree and decide on appropriate compensation and possibly further punishment to recommend to the GM staff. An example of an appropriate punishment would be the removal of loot, while an example of compensation would be the forfeitute of an FFA mob, or requiring that guild to help with Epic fights or turnins, or some other form of guild-wide 'Community-Service'.

The second goal is to receive candid and open feedback from guild leadership on the given situation. Your thoughts and opinions are valued and are often taken into consideration when they are available. Hopefully this will allow us to mediate disputes more quickly and with more information available, as it will hopefully be compiled by multiple guilds as opposed to one or two.

Any guild that would like to exercise this option may do so, but it should be noted that only guilds affected/involved will have a valid voice in regards to the end decision affecting the dispute in question. Other guilds will of course be able to voice their opinion. This option may be exercised by any guild involved in the dispute if they would prefer to make their discussion public. The GM staff of course always reserves the right to intervene at any time, but this will be used as a last resort wherefer possible. Hopefully this will create more transparency during disputes where it is needed, as well as expedite decisions and promote community cooperation.

I look forward to seeing how this affects the raid community.

~~Please excuse any typos, these two posts were made from my phone.

[-Catherin-]

Derubael

I honestly don't see how Sirken's statement of "no trackers on the spawn point period" could be interpreted any other way than how it was stated, but,

Please give me examples of:

What evidence I can provide that makes where they are standing clearer than a screenshot with a loc. I know someone on that staff knows the location of Sev and can put the pieces together with what was provided.

And how I am supposed to get something clearer than a screenshot with a loc without actually getting close enough to provide that.

Basically, what are you looking for that you consider solid? Because this will happen again. And it will keep happening until someone finally gets caught and pays for it. The last few FFA Faydedars had agro by trackers which then died and dropped the agro onto other trackers, effectively killing all the trackers. I had originally petitioned this hoping someone could actually pop in quickly and see what was going on for themselves, as that would have worked out a lot better than me providing the unrealistic proof that seems to be required (what is needed is not clear, even if I get enough then im in violation to get it)

This has been going on regularly since the first sev dispute and nobody can give anyone enough to "prove it"

[Ella`Ella]

Derubael

I honestly don't see how Sirken's statement of "no trackers on the spawn point period" could be interpreted any other way than how it was stated, but,

Please give me examples of:

What evidence I can provide that makes where they are standing clearer than a screenshot with a loc. I know someone on that staff knows the location of Sev and can put the pieces together with what was provided.

And how I am supposed to get something clearer than a screenshot with a loc without actually getting close enough to provide that.

Basically, what are you looking for that you consider solid? Because this will happen again. And it will keep happening until someone finally gets caught and pays for it. The last few FFA Faydedars had agro by trackers which then died and dropped the agro onto other trackers, effectively killing all the trackers. I had originally petitioned this hoping someone could actually pop in quickly and see what was going on for themselves, as that would have worked out a lot better than me providing the unrealistic proof that seems to be required (what is needed is not clear, even if I get enough then im in violation to get it)

This has been going on regularly since the first sev dispute and nobody can give anyone enough to "prove it"

Catherin,

Your screenshot provides your location (not ours) and just shows a poorly drawn circle around some TMO members standing where Sev may or may not spawn in a dark zone that all looks the same. There is also no /time to show a range of time that lapsed between you making your rounds to check on the offenders. Essentially, all your screenshot shows is a single point in time where TMO member were in an indeterminable location for an indeterminate span of time. If you're looking to submit actual proof, provide a fraps with logs to sync them to, timestamps and the images of the full communication between yourself and our player, not just a photo of you sending a single tell to one of our members and then cropping his response out of your photo by scrolling up, which is apparent in your screenshot. Essentially, this petition looks more like you're trying to draw a connection saying that no player in a guild that plans on FTEing sev can have any character anywhere in the zone other than a specific, predesignated location. If that were the rule in place, then maybe your screenshots would hold some merit.

I had originally petitioned this hoping someone could actually pop in quickly and see what was going on for themselves

Again, Taken is petitioning without communicating with guild leaders, which is directly against the wishes of CSR. Catherin, this is not the first time you have failed to reach out to guild leadership and have immediately bypassed the instructions of GM's to do so and gone straight to CSR. Please observe the policies in place. Continuing to 'shoot first, ask questions later' isn't constructive to the raid environment you claim you want to improve.

Taken, specifically Catherin, is also no stranger to violating rules (re: Autofire) and then petitioning or using the claim they were only trying to make a point and then 'get-out-of-jail-free'. You claim you were just observing our behavior of being off the spawn point, but as a bard you should surely know about Bind sight? You're also not stranger to Fraps, and then of course there is the safe distance approach where you could have watched us from. None of these came into play, and it becomes apparent that you were trying to claim FTE, being KoS, for yourself and only petition if you lost? Or, if observing your previous history, you'd probably petition yourself to try and make some kind of point, although I'm not sure what point you'd be illustrating.

Finally, your petition is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened and is also blatantly deceitful. This kind of behavior should be punished unquestioned and it's this kind of behavior in PetitionQuest that leads to GM frustration and inter-guild tensions. You claim that this happened over a period of 3 hours, however the mage in your screenshot, Pnokk, wasn't even online for the 9 hours preceding Sev's spawn. You also claim that our mage, Ferment, never responded to you, when in fact he had responded only moments later, indicating that not only had he moved, he also asked you if his new location was acceptable to you - to which you never responded. The whole claim revolves around the premise that you had been observing us for 3 hours straight, however even trackers from other guilds can verify we were all tracking on the mountain across from the spawn point together, out of aggro range (on non-KoS mages, mind you). You took a number of screenshots in a very short period of time, which included one of our mages showing a brand new mage the spawn point, and are trying to sell it as a violation of raid rules.

[-Catherin-]

This previous post is more of you saying I need to prove it. Derubael already said I did not have enough to prove it. I backed off this particular incident Move on.

I followed the protocol no matter which way you try to slice it. I just forget that you guys wrote the book on rule lawyering, and im trying to get some clear info so I can do better the next time your guild pulls the same shit.

Why are you so upset over me trying to find out clearly what the GMs want in future scenarios? Do you expect me to take your word on it?

[Ella`Ella]

Why are you so upset over me trying to find out clearly what the GMs want in future scenarios?

I'm not upset over an invalid claim and lack of proof - in that regard, I am relieved. If you think I'm upset, or if you can even call it that, it's because of your blatant deceit and manipulation against not only a member of my guild, but my guild as a whole. That kind of behavior is what deteriorates whatever fabric is left that holds this server together. If you don't see how that kind of behavior affects the community as a whole than I think you should reconsider your position in such a highly regarded guild.

If the GM's don't punish you, your guild should.

[-Catherin-]

laying it on pretty thick, even for you. How about you take this to RnF where it belongs?

Catherin, Taken, specifically Catherin, is also no stranger to violating rules (re: Autofire) and then petitioning or using the claim they were only trying to make a point and then 'get-out-of-jail-free'. You claim you were just observing our behavior of being off the spawn point, but as a bard you should surely know about Bind sight? You're also not stranger to Fraps, and then of course there is the safe distance approach where you could have watched us from. None of these came into play, and it becomes apparent that you were trying to claim FTE, being KoS, for yourself and only petition if you lost? Or, if observing your previous history, you'd probably petition yourself to try and make some kind of point, although I'm not sure what point you'd be illustrating.



oh boy its this again, is it in the TMO lawyer handbook to point out the autofire incident every time you guys are contested in anything? Talk about unprofessional. Feel threatened in an argument so you need to set up a straw man? This entire topic has no place in this argument and anyone with a brain will see how unprofessional you are being for just bringing it up. This is not RnF unbrella

The petition went in long before the mob spawned btw. it was not a "backup" in case we lost. Derubael can attest to the truth of that.

I asked for a GM response for clear methods in the future to prove wrongdoings, not for your opinion and attacks. kindly back off.

[Derubael]

Derubael

I honestly don't see how Sirken's statement of "no trackers on the spawn point period" could be interpreted any other way than how it was stated, but,

Please give me examples of:

What evidence I can provide that makes where they are standing clearer than a screenshot with a loc. I know someone on that staff knows the location of Sev and can put the pieces together with what was provided.

And how I am supposed to get something clearer than a screenshot with a loc without actually getting close enough to provide that.

Basically, what are you looking for that you consider solid? Because this will happen again. And it will keep happening until someone finally gets caught and pays for it. The last few FFA Faydedars had agro by trackers which then died and dropped the agro onto other trackers, effectively killing all the trackers. I had originally petitioned this hoping someone could actually pop in quickly and see what was going on for themselves, as that would have worked out a lot better than me providing the unrealistic proof that seems to be required (what is needed is not clear, even if I get enough then im in violation to get it)

This has been going on regularly since the first sev dispute and nobody can give anyone enough to "prove it"

Fraps, or some other video recording software is always best in terms of evidence. When attempting to identify "how long" someone is sitting in a particular location, using the /time command is essential - more than once if using screenshots. I have absolutely no idea how long these people were standing on the spawn point because none of your screenshots show a server time. For all I know you and the TMO trackers were standing there for the same length of time, in equal violation of what you are disputing. You have to look at these things from our standpoint, which is that we don't trust anyone - the primary reason why we ask for thorough and clear evidence of any given dispute - and that the only way we can truly objectively mediate or rule on a petition/claim is to rely solely on this evidence when making a decision. Extra corroboration through other sources such as logs, matching testimony from opposing sides, and various other presentations, while helpful, must always be carefully scrutinized and matched to other more reliable forms of evidence, like video or even in certain cases, a screenshot (or 50).

I understand that you may feel frustrated that your evidence does not sufficiently corroborate your accompanying explanation, but hopefully this will give a better idea on what is considered thorough and clear evidence in the future. While it may be easy for players to pass judgement in circumstances like these, particularly in high-stakes - or even heated encounters like we frequently see in the raid scene - we as GM's have to scrutinize very closely every piece of evidence when a decision is required by us in order to ensure we are making the right call. These decisions often affect dozens if not hundreds of players and may impact future disputes - there is a lot of pressure and expectation for us to get things correct - even though that may not even be possible with the evidence provided. It may seem abundantly clear to you what occurred, but we are very rarely present for shenanigans as they take place, even though we wish that were possible, the raid scene is only one small - but important - part of P99 CSR and we have to balance all aspects of that in addition to our real lives, just like everyone else. This is why we have to receive as much detailed information as possible that provides a clear picture of the events that prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt who is at fault before we are going to feel comfortable laying out something as serious as an entire guilds' inability to (essentially for a Class C guild and to some extent a Class R guild) play the game, potentially for weeks at a time. We are also abundantly aware that regardless of what we decide, there will always be people upset with our interpretation or implementation of the rules and the decision those rules lead us to - this truth has always caused us to do what we feel is right, makes sense, and is fair, even if that conclusion is not the "popular" one.

Once again, video is always the best bet - record in at least 720p or in whatever format shows clear nameplates, geography, etc. or it's use may be limited. Most video recording software will timestamp videos internally on their own, but it's always good to use that in-game /time command at the beginning or end of a video in order to establish when the video was taken - this is extremely important in helping us identify where exactly the video falls within the petitions timeline.

In this particular case, I feel that you had other options of gathering the evidence in your original post, that did not involve violating the very rule that you are claiming TMO broke. This is something that everyone needs to be very careful of to ensure that they are not themselves causing an infraction. That will, at best, give the violating guild something to use against you, or at worst, cause your guild to end up with the same punishment if one is handed down. "I didn't have any other choice" is very rarely, if ever, going hold any water or be considered a valid excuse.

Lastly, as I stated in my post, it is my interpretation - and likely Sirken's intent - that his statement be taken as a strong suggestion or even a warning that standing on a mobs spawn point will probably get you in trouble, as when a mob spawns if you are there and you get aggro, you've suddenly violated the tracker rule and may be subject to punishment. Generally speaking when we make a new rule - which is what is being implied was established in this post - the new rule is very clearly acknowledged as such, oftentimes reiterated by other staff members or otherwise clearly communicated as being "law", rather than included off-hand in a forum post. Again, as I stated, I could be wrong about this and Sirken's intent in that message, but generally speaking, when a new rule is created, or a new interpretation of a rule is clarified, Sirken and I take a significant amount of time to discuss this rule, oftentimes needing approval from Rogean in order to set it in stone (if it pertains to the raid scene, Rogean approval is almost always required for a new rule). Again, you'd have to ask him to clarify his intent, I am not the Lead-CSR GM.

As stated previously, this is my stance on the situation as well as recommendations for the future, with my former post giving suggestions on how to address concerns and disputes that will inevitably arrive down the road. I feel like I was fairly clear in my posts, and that all I did here was elaborate slightly on what was stated previously. I hope that this clarifies my meaning and that your questions were sufficiently answered. I have had busy week and look forward to an even busier week catching up with p99 work, so I may just be worn out and misinterpreting the situation. That's one reason why we have two GM's, and I'm sure Sirken will give his thoughts when he is able. In the meantime, Argh made a great suggestion in the Current Raid Scene thread near/at the end that could use some thought. I'd like to continue encouraging guilds to work together whenever possible despite potential animosity during encounters like this. I think, despite some negative attitudes, is an attainable goal.

Good luck!


~deru

[-Catherin-]

Fraps, or some other video recording software is always best in terms of evidence. When attempting to identify "how long" someone is sitting in a particular location, using the /time command is essential - more than once if using screenshots. I have absolutely no idea how long these people were standing on the spawn point because none of your screenshots show a server time. For all I know you and the TMO trackers were standing there for the same length of time, in equal violation of what you are disputing. You have to look at these things from our standpoint, which is that we don't trust anyone - the primary reason why we ask for thorough and clear evidence of any given dispute - and that the only way we can truly objectively mediate or rule on a petition/claim is to rely solely on this evidence when making a decision. Extra corroboration through other sources such as logs, matching testimony from opposing sides, and various other presentations, while helpful, must always be carefully scrutinized and matched to other more reliable forms of evidence, like video or even in certain cases, a screenshot (or 50).

I understand that you may feel frustrated that your evidence does not sufficiently corroborate your accompanying explanation, but hopefully this will give a better idea on what is considered thorough and clear evidence in the future. While it may be easy for players to pass judgement in circumstances like these, particularly in high-stakes - or even heated encounters like we frequently see in the raid scene - we as GM's have to scrutinize very closely every piece of evidence when a decision is required by us in order to ensure we are making the right call. These decisions often affect dozens if not hundreds of players and may impact future disputes - there is a lot of pressure and expectation for us to get things correct - even though that may not even be possible with the evidence provided. It may seem abundantly clear to you what occurred, but we are very rarely present for shenanigans as they take place, even though we wish that were possible, the raid scene is only one small - but important - part of P99 CSR and we have to balance all aspects of that in addition to our real lives, just like everyone else. This is why we have to receive as much detailed information as possible that provides a clear picture of the events that prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt who is at fault before we are going to feel comfortable laying out something as serious as an entire guilds' inability to (essentially for a Class C guild and to some extent a Class R guild) play the game, potentially for weeks at a time. We are also abundantly aware that regardless of what we decide, there will always be people upset with our interpretation or implementation of the rules and the decision those rules lead us to - this truth has always caused us to do what we feel is right, makes sense, and is fair, even if that conclusion is not the "popular" one.

Once again, video is always the best bet - record in at least 720p or in whatever format shows clear nameplates, geography, etc. or it's use may be limited. Most video recording software will timestamp videos internally on their own, but it's always good to use that in-game /time command at the beginning or end of a video in order to establish when the video was taken - this is extremely important in helping us identify where exactly the video falls within the petitions timeline.

In this particular case, I feel that you had other options of gathering the evidence in your original post, that did not involve violating the very rule that you are claiming TMO broke. This is something that everyone needs to be very careful of to ensure that they are not themselves causing an infraction. That will, at best, give the violating guild something to use against you, or at worst, cause your guild to end up with the same punishment if one is handed down. "I didn't have any other choice" is very rarely, if ever, going hold any water or be considered a valid excuse.

Lastly, as I stated in my post, it is my interpretation - and likely Sirken's intent - that his statement be taken as a strong suggestion or even a warning that standing on a mobs spawn point will probably get you in trouble, as when a mob spawns if you are there and you get aggro, you've suddenly violated the tracker rule and may be subject to punishment. Generally speaking when we make a new rule - which is what is being implied was established in this post - the new rule is very clearly acknowledged as such, oftentimes reiterated by other staff members or otherwise clearly communicated as being "law", rather than included off-hand in a forum post. Again, as I stated, I could be wrong about this and Sirken's intent in that message, but generally speaking, when a new rule is created, or a new interpretation of a rule is clarified, Sirken and I take a significant amount of time to discuss this rule, oftentimes needing approval from Rogean in order to set it in stone (if it pertains to the raid scene, Rogean approval is almost always required for a new rule). Again, you'd have to ask him to clarify his intent, I am not the Lead-CSR GM.

As stated previously, this is my stance on the situation as well as recommendations for the future, with my former post giving suggestions on how to address concerns and disputes that will inevitably arrive down the road. I feel like I was fairly clear in my posts, and that all I did here was elaborate slightly on what was stated previously. I hope that this clarifies my meaning and that your questions were sufficiently answered. I have had busy week and look forward to an even busier week catching up with p99 work, so I may just be worn out and misinterpreting the situation. That's one reason why we have two GM's, and I'm sure Sirken will give his thoughts when he is able. In the meantime, Argh made a great suggestion in the Current Raid Scene thread near/at the end that could use some thought. I'd like to continue encouraging guilds to work together whenever possible despite potential animosity during encounters like this. I think, despite some negative attitudes, is an attainable goal.

Good luck!


~deru


Thank you!

[Derubael]

Thank you!

You are welcome. I hope it is more clear what Sirken and I look for when reviewing disputes that hace been unable to be resolved through player mediation, as well as why we require such detailed and thorough evidence before reaching a decision. Being descriptive and complete in your petition will also greatly aid in our ability to discern what took place.

On my list of things to do is a brief write-up outlining proper procedure when handling a dispute, from the infraction taking place through to a completed dispute. Hopefully this will make staff expectations for dispute mediation more clear

[Drakakade]

This is a shameful thread for a number of reasons - it looks bad on everyone involved.

Be that as it may, Divinity interprets Sirken's message to all guilds stating, "... it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations." and, "Consider this a warning to all guilds, the next time this happens, you can expect a guild suspension." as meaning:

1. No trackers on raid spawn locations, and
2. Any infraction will be met with a guild suspension.

Until Divinity receives further clarification from Sirken / Staff, Divinity will not park any of our trackers on raid spawn locations whether our trackers are KoS or not.

[Anichek]

This is a shameful thread for a number of reasons - it looks bad on everyone involved.

Be that as it may, Divinity interprets Sirken's message to all guilds stating, "... it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations." and, "Consider this a warning to all guilds, the next time this happens, you can expect a guild suspension." as meaning:

1. No trackers on raid spawn locations, and
2. Any infraction will be met with a guild suspension.

Until Divinity receives further clarification from Sirken / Staff, Divinity will not park any of our trackers on raid spawn locations whether our trackers are KoS or not.

Yep, those statements seem crystal clear to me.

[Derubael]

Again, to make sure we are all on the same page, my personal interpretation of that particular statement by Sirken, based on how rule changes are usually made and information is disseminated among the Senior Staff - as well as the context of the statement and being fortunate to know how Sirken thinks, is that this was not a hard rule, and instead a suggestion.

I personally don't have any problem with implementing the aforementioned rule if you all feel that it's necessary (and don't just make your decision based on wanting to get TMO in trouble), then I don't see the harm, though the benefit doesn't seem to be huge either, and we should all keep in mind that the more rules we add, the more nuances and exceptions that new-comers to the raid scene have to be sure they don't violate. Maybe my trust in the average guild/raid leaders ability to read a bunch of forum threads or receive clear instruction from their peers is less than it should be, but I am already concerned at the increasing number of circumstantial or mob-specific rules that seem to be "needed" for guilds to stay in line. I think the "don't engage targets with your trackers" rule should already cover this one pretty thoroughly.

Most importantly, you will all need to wait for Sirken's clarification. He's also extremely busy this week and may take some time to respond, but obviously until he does, it is probably best to follow it as if it's a literal set in stone law just to be safe. I still find it highly unlikely that he intended to add more restrictions on where people can be and where they can't be, as this is something we really don't like setting limits on wherever we can avoid it - this is something we've both been pretty clear about, if not in public, than certainly in our own private discussions. As a final note, even if we are to assume that this rule is active and was active at the time of these screenshots, there still simply isn't enough here to corroborate Catherine's explanation or damn TMO to <insert community chosen torture here>. If people are getting FTE with trackers, even if they quickly die and drop aggro after it happens, people should start fraps'ing that and compile a thread here in raid discussion to highlight that it's an ongoing issue. If it's as large a concern as this thread seems to suggest, rather than one or two isolated incidents that can easily be mediated between guilds rather than force staff intervention, it's something we can deal with in a fashion that doesn't require the creation of more rules. I would greatly prefer this to the alternative - creating more and more restrictions and rules to try and enforce... rules that we already have in place.

[Sirken]

holy fucking nerds.

listen, essentially we (staff) are saying the same thing. if nothing pops i obviously dont care where people are, because no harm no foul. but if the mob pops and you have trackernerds on the spawn spot, their trackernerd will/should get aggro, and as such they would be breaking the "trackers can't FTE" rule.

its really getting ridiculous the way some of you are picking apart staff posts to benefit yourselves. all of the raiding guilds need to stop trying to game the system and play the game within the rules, or you're gonna have a bad time.

<3
Sirks

[Ella`Ella]

holy fucking nerds.

listen, essentially we (staff) are saying the same thing. if nothing pops i obviously dont care where people are, because no harm no foul. but if the mob pops and you have trackernerds on the spawn spot, their trackernerd will/should get aggro, and as such they would be breaking the "trackers can't FTE" rule.

its really getting ridiculous the way some of you are picking apart staff posts to benefit yourselves. all of the raiding guilds need to stop trying to game the system and play the game within the rules, or you're gonna have a bad time.

<3
Sirks

But do you lift?

[Sirken]

But do you lift?

http://static02.mediaite.com/styleite/uploads/2014/09/tie.gif

[Artaenc]

holy fucking nerds.

listen, essentially we (staff) are saying the same thing. if nothing pops i obviously dont care where people are, because no harm no foul. but if the mob pops and you have trackernerds on the spawn spot, their trackernerd will/should get aggro, and as such they would be breaking the "trackers can't FTE" rule.

its really getting ridiculous the way some of you are picking apart staff posts to benefit yourselves. all of the raiding guilds need to stop trying to game the system and play the game within the rules, or you're gonna have a bad time.

<3
Sirks

How about the trackernerd that are not kos because they spent hundreds of nerd hours in mistmoore to get the faction? They can coth their taggers directly on top of Sev. Would that be acceptable?

[Derubael]

How about the trackernerd that are not kos because they spent hundreds of nerd hours in mistmoore to get the faction? They can coth their nerd--taggers directly on top of Sev. Would that be nerdcceptable?

ftfy.

Do you guys have your own established rule regarding the CotH'ing of players by tracker-mages when a target spawns? If no, there are no rules against this from a CSR standpoint. Sirken had specifically asked me if this was legitimate earlier and I was unavailable to respond but as I stated above, there are no rules against this at this time, unless those rules are player-made.

[Drakakade]

Honestly, I do not what is going on here anymore, because "That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations" did not have any qualifying adjectives like "kos trackers". Sirken's statement was clear: no trackers in range, and hence Taken (rightly or wrongly) being upset when they perceived a tracker(s) were in range.

Clearly, folks were trying to inch up on the mob, and rather than the refs calling off-side we are now all going to have to go faction in MM? First, let's give some props to the prediction on 07/14/2014:

You do realize this is going to be a nightmare to police across the board, right? Because with all due respect, instead of solving anything your solution here is to just trade one cheat headache for another imo.

Back to a drastically increased amount of frapsquesting i guess, and a constant need for "where was this guy parked" petitions (especially on those outdoor dragons).

Folks we need to put our egos aside here, because with this new interpretation to Sirken's tracker proximity rule all we have done is move poopsocking from a guild affair to a 2 man/guild tracking, 16 hour coh-ducking affair, with the factioned CoH tracker(s) winning the truncated poopsock... Was that the intent?

Do we really want to just limit the scale of poopsocking? I hope not. Next, think about those poor GT folks or Dojo guys when they were perplexed at the web of raid rules - now you want them to faction up a bunch of dedicated CoH trackers?

I suggest going back to the problem and seeing if we can fix the original issue: the ball first got moved when we allowed CoH FTE's. That spawned CoH ducking and 16 poopducksocking by 2 trackers. Now, we (possibly) are inching the ball a bit closer by allowing factioned coh duckbots... Can we agree to fix CoH ducking, and then this issue will go away? Trakanon can stay the same or we can all just clear down to Trakanon - whatever you guys prefer.

Next, and this is for the staff, who I want to thank again for putting up with all this BS lawyering, and for putting in their free time to police the mess. I know it is frustrating to make a rule and then have everyone pick it apart. It must feel like folks are nitpicking. However, I believe that communication via text is very difficult, and what is really happening is the raiding guilds are trying to fully understand the scope of the rule.

I would humbly submit that before any new rule is set in stone that you give the various guilds 1 week to do their rules lawyering best to see if they can find any loopholes / clarification so we don't have to go down this thorny road each time.

Secondly, and this is a shameless plug, I would like to start thinking about Velious, and start to hear about any new rules the staff would like to work on prior to release. And i do have a horse in the race: Ziglark Whisperwing. At some point fairly soon, can we sit down and discuss what potentially will be a mess in Velious?

Again, thanks for your patience, and effort on our behalf.

[-Catherin-]

C/R Rotation, 100% FFA on simulated respawns.

puts this problem to bed entirely.

[Ella`Ella]

The members of Class-R were unhappy before the creation of the class system and new raid rules, thus the guilds that are now considered Class-C were forced to give up mobs to accommodate them. Now, Class-R is again unhappy with an agreement that they accepted by Rogean but are insisting that Class-C continue to sacrifice.

It's always been my understanding that if a party is truly unhappy with something, they will sacrifice something to become happier. I don't see Class-R willing to give anything up to achieve what they are looking for.

If you don't like playing in the 'toxic cesspool' that TMO and IB play in during FFA encounters, then I imagine the simple solution would be to not attend targets when they are FFA and overlap with Class-C. There is no force pushing any Class-R guild to intersect with the play-style of Class-C. FFA simply allows you the option to do so if you so choose. It also provides Class-R guilds that might like to test the Class-C waters a chance to do so without committing to becoming Class-C for whatever period of time you get put into that category.

[-Catherin-]

The members of Class-R were unhappy before the creation of the class system and new raid rules, thus the guilds that are now considered Class-C were forced to give up mobs to accommodate them. Now, Class-R is again unhappy with an agreement that they accepted by Rogean but are insisting that Class-C continue to sacrifice.

It's always been my understanding that if a party is truly unhappy with something, they will sacrifice something to become happier. I don't see Class-R willing to give anything up to achieve what they are looking for.

If you don't like playing in the 'toxic cesspool' that TMO and IB play in during FFA encounters, then I imagine the simple solution would be to not attend targets when they are FFA and overlap with Class-C. There is no force pushing any Class-R guild to intersect with the play-style of Class-C. FFA simply allows you the option to do so if you so choose. It also provides Class-R guilds that might like to test the Class-C waters a chance to do so without committing to becoming Class-C for whatever period of time you get put into that category.

How exactly can a Class R guild test the waters in Class C now? FFA targets do not resemble any form of competition now, and if we followed your "advice" to not do FFA at all, then that's just as bad. Where is the growth, and potential movement into a more "competitive" environment (Class C) that this raid agreement was supposed to foster?

C/R rotation eliminates all the drama and rule lawyering currently going on and "should" make everyone happy. including the GMs that need to deal with it.

100% FFA on respawns is where the real competition would happen. Guilds mobilizing, making snap decisions of targets and getting to them before someone else does and successfully killing it under a real press for time, and potentially lower numbers and un-perfect set ups due to that press for time. The only issue I see Class C really having with this is that Class R may actually wrestle some FFA targets away from them. Are you worried that we may actually be able to compete given the chance?

[Drakakade]

Unbrella, give it a rest.

C / R / FFA arose as a result of the rampant cheating that was occurring by TMO which resulted in Rogean's Thorbanhammer, and which resulted in Zeelot disbanding TMO after his "post".

Why TMO was allowed to reform when the Guild Leader at the time disbanded is beyond me, but what was left of TMO then reformed and absorbed FE of which you were a member.

(Biased) History lesson over.

IF R class guilds want VP mobs then they need to step up to C class. On that we agree. Can you kindly suggest a way of fixing the existing problem or would your guild like to support factioned CoH duckbots? IF so, just let us know your position.

[-Catherin-]

I would also clarify that they can have VP on the repops. when I said 100% FFA I meant everything outside of that.

[Anichek]

If anyone gave this a legitimate review, it would work. "Spells" under the engagement definition would also include CoTH, etc. Basically if you are in zone, you can do NOTHING except talk in /gu, send out a batphone, text your friends, or scream in your Vent/Mumble/TS to get people moving.

Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

Wouldn't have this problem, and don't see any single reason why this idea should be opposed by anyone.

[Drakakade]

Divinity would agree to the Anichek proposal with the exception of the "code stamp", because devs are working on Velious.

Instead, trackers can police who is zone, and we can all agree to not having any members in a zone other than trackers at the time of spawn. Everyone camp out forces outside of zone, and they can zone in at the time of spawn. Otherwise it is harder to police.

[Anichek]

A point was raised to me about advantage being gained under my proposal because of the varying degree of PC performance individuals may have. While I acknowledge that having a faster processor/more RAM/better video card/ SSD HD etc would certainly speed up aspects of the game, I do not think we need to account for that. People shouldn't be penalized for having a rig that is on-point - my proposal is a way to equalize the in-game execution of response and raid execution. Valid concern worth contemplation though!

[Anichek]

Divinity would agree to the Anichek proposal with the exception of the "code stamp", because devs are working on Velious.

Instead, trackers can police who is zone, and we can all agree to not having any members in a zone other than trackers at the time of spawn. Everyone camp out forces outside of zone, and they can zone in at the time of spawn. Otherwise it is harder to police.

Trackers CAN police it but this thread is a perfect example of what can come from that. Everyone has a view and their own perspective.

I am not personally savvy on code but a query tied to the spawn event, I would think, would be a simple command that could be automated into the spawn itself- but that's all theory until someone qualifies the time it would take to do so.

[Anichek]

Another concern brought forward: binding in zones to gate to the engagement.

Simple - no gating into an engagement zone. Period.

How do you get to Gore? Cap it, Druid port to rings, but no gating to KC.
How do you get to Sev? Bind in CoM or TT.
How do you get to Tal? Hammer and run, etc.

Simple to hold to, simple to execute, yet will still allow for staging of characters OR if one is really motivated, shifting bind points with whatever targets you are going for as the windows open. Potentially screws you in a repop too, which adds more fun and complexity to Earthquakes!

[Pint]

Holy shit at this thread.. Yes asgard would agree to doing away with mages for fte outside of trak, this was and is a ridiculous requirement to compete for ffa spawns. Again any rule set that says ppl in zone cannot get fte and anyone who does get fte must zone in from a connecting zone will suffice. I personally agree that any argument about ppl with faster computers or internet are not valid. Please lets get rid of mage tracking, it is not cool.

[Derubael]

Honestly, I do not what is going on here anymore, because "That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations" did not have any qualifying adjectives like "kos trackers". Sirken's statement was clear: no trackers in range, and hence Taken (rightly or wrongly) being upset when they perceived a tracker(s) were in range.

It may just be that I work with the guy all day every day, but I really clearly understood what he meant in his post. The lack of any kind of certification that a new rule had been made by the CSR staff (something that we try to make really clear when it occurs), and the fact that this rule essentially just doubles up on the "No tracker engage" rule, pretty much confirmed it for me that this was merely a common-sense suggestion sort of thing rather than a rule.


Clearly, folks were trying to inch up on the mob, and rather than the refs calling off-side we are now all going to have to go faction in MM? First, let's give some props to the prediction on 07/14/2014:


I'm confused by this statement. Why would everyone need to go faction in MM to track targets(which is pretty common anyway)? I suppose you may gain a slight competitive edge by doing so, but given the way aggro ticks land on this server, CotHing in a puller next to the target to gain FTE is still going to come down to who CotH'd first followed by how quickly you can hit your /target dragonname, /autoattack button that everyone has made by now.


Folks we need to put our egos aside here, because with this new interpretation to Sirken's tracker proximity rule all we have done is move poopsocking from a guild affair to a 2 man/guild tracking, 16 hour coh-ducking affair, with the factioned CoH tracker(s) winning the truncated poopsock... Was that the intent?

Do we really want to just limit the scale of poopsocking? I hope not. Next, think about those poor GT folks or Dojo guys when they were perplexed at the web of raid rules - now you want them to faction up a bunch of dedicated CoH trackers?

I suggest going back to the problem and seeing if we can fix the original issue: the ball first got moved when we allowed CoH FTE's. That spawned CoH ducking and 16 poopducksocking by 2 trackers. Now, we (possibly) are inching the ball a bit closer by allowing factioned coh duckbots... Can we agree to fix CoH ducking, and then this issue will go away? Trakanon can stay the same or we can all just clear down to Trakanon - whatever you guys prefer.

We as a staff can't stand the socking. We had hoped all the new rules regarding engage limitations would, at the VERY least, severely curb the desire to sock - if not eliminate it entirely. Instead, everyone just stands at "the spot" for each mob and bullshits their way to the target with a magician assembly line. Not exactly what we had in mind. It took maybe all of a couple weeks for this to happen, and that just cements in my mind that there is no staff-enforced solution that will solve this without creating a stupidly restricted, enjoyment-sucking set of rules governing every aspect of raiding, something we have less than zero interest in doing.


Next, and this is for the staff, who I want to thank again for putting up with all this BS lawyering, and for putting in their free time to police the mess. I know it is frustrating to make a rule and then have everyone pick it apart. It must feel like folks are nitpicking. However, I believe that communication via text is very difficult, and what is really happening is the raiding guilds are trying to fully understand the scope of the rule.

I would humbly submit that before any new rule is set in stone that you give the various guilds 1 week to do their rules lawyering best to see if they can find any loopholes / clarification so we don't have to go down this thorny road each time.


I think we already do this most of the time. The last rule we made was pretty simple, and had already been thoroughly vetted by the community prior to it's implementation: Trackers can't get FTE on a target. Whenever we come up with a new rule we sit down and spend a significant amount of time discussing why it's needed, who feels it's necessary, and what, if any, issues will arise as a result. We also weigh very heavily whether or not the reward is worth the potential downside. Rarely will we not thoroughly look at a new rule or rule-set without picking it apart ourselves, something I feel we are very good at because we spend large amounts of time stepping on rule lawyers and their arguments each year.

Problems or confusion are usually a result of rules needing to be rapidly put in place taht don't receive the proper treatment. I hesitantly present the current raid rule-set as a prime example of this. We had very little time to talk about these and get them right. I was also fairly spaced out when the actual rules were written as well, and I usually provide the actual write-up for new rules, or at the very least give the wording itself to the person writing it. Most times I spend lots of time making sure this is clear, easily understood, and lawyer proof, but again, I was mostly spaced out at this time (and to be honest, I feel like we all may have been a bit far away that day). As a result, I really think the current "raid rules" are vague, confusing, and sometimes outright misleading. We still get asked for clarification, with almost a year having passed since their creation. A good rule will be easy to write in a clear and concise fashion that demands little clarification, creates minimal confusion, and allows little room for lawyering or "purposeful misinterpretation" - something that many of you have gotten very good at doing, but I truly feel is less prevalent now than it was a year ago. At this point it's "too late" to fix these rules on our own, and I don't see much desire from the staff to do so, which is why I have been trying to gently nudge the community into doing so themselves, finally changing my nudge to a shove a couple weeks ago in a thread somewhere.

There are also times that we make rules we know will be extremely unpopular or outright hated, but are necessary anyway. At times like these, we rarely bother to do any kind of community "beta-test" prior to activating them.


Secondly, and this is a shameless plug, I would like to start thinking about Velious, and start to hear about any new rules the staff would like to work on prior to release. And i do have a horse in the race: Ziglark Whisperwing. At some point fairly soon, can we sit down and discuss what potentially will be a mess in Velious?

Again, thanks for your patience, and effort on our behalf.

This is something we want to address as well, and the community should expect a thread soon - possibly one in server chat and one in raid discussion. As always, we will do our best to create as few rules and restrictions while keeping the encounters enjoyable and largely worry-free, but some targets will absolutely require exceptions and stipulations. In the end this will be up to the staff to set in stone, but we will rely heavily on the community to provide these where needed.


C/R Rotation, 100% FFA on simulated respawns.

puts this problem to bed entirely.

I don't see us backing this idea anytime soon because we still really want to encourage guilds to at least try to practice in preparation for a transition. While I'm fully aware this isn't happening right now, that isn't to say it won't in the future - for all we know, there may be a guild getting ready to rock-and-roll any day now. That being said, if 100% of the guilds agreed, we'd almost assuredly do it anyway. The problem is I really don't see a universal agreement as a possibility, so it's probably better to move onto something different.

As a side note, Anicheks idea would be really difficult to police. In addition, as previously stated, anything that requires a code-change that is more extensive than changing an integer or two is not worth talking about. Rogean and Haynar already have enough to do. A zone check or even an area within a zone check, for example, is not that hard to code (from what I understand) in itself. But any information collected in that check then needs to be outputted somewhere accessible by the staff - simply throwing it into a back-end table would mean only I can read it, and that's not likely to be good enough. That means new connections to the front-end, which means more coding, which means more time and testing and hair tearing. At this point in time we're doing our best to create less work for our development staff, I refuse to even mention something that would create more.

Still excited to see you guys coming up with new ideas in between my unnecessarily long and overly descriptive posts. Kudos and thanks to anyone who reads through all of these :D

[Drakakade]

Thank-you, Derubael, for taking the time to clarify the situation, and for responding to my concerns in regards to Velious. Looking forward to seeing the upcoming discussion.