FTE Shouts: Rethinking Their Mechanics and Issue

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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?

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Anesthia]

Make bosses flag you for PvP.

[porigromus]

Originally Posted by Anesthia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by porigromus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[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.

[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.