PSA: Regarding Today's Severilous (8/24)

[arsenalpow]

Following your edit, most of the people on that encounter log didn't want to be there (every single Mage?) Cucs fraps pretty easily shows some people chucking javelins to get on the list. That's actively intending to get on the log. Why would someone actively get on the list knowing they don't have FTE? A monk or SK maybe to stand up after the reset to get aggro but why otherwise?

[Derubael]

My last word on this subject:

I edited my post.

Also, no, everyone on that list did not immediately bail out, as we can see from the length that they were on the log. Four out of seven BDA were on the list for close to the length of the entire engage. The other guilds who picked up hate had similar numbers from their people on the hatelist.

I guess you guys don't really have to understand the reasoning behind it, but we don't see this situation as your average FTE dispute.

Edit: To answer your question - I have no idea why people would be trying to get on the hate list. Why is BDA on there 30-60 seconds in? Why is TMO there 20 seconds in? The whole situation is ridiculous so we're throwing the whole thing out the window and calling it a wash.

[arsenalpow]

Ollie + pet
Conjour + pet

Both gained aggro from Nemce setting off an AE, both gated.

BDA's two bards (Ennio/Trouble) were called to zone their aggro which they did due to BDA not having FTE. Gremlin got aggro and proceeded to FD in case he could stand and get FTE. Necromis was at the wrong camp and only had aggro as long as it took Taken down to the dragon.

The biggest point to this is that it's completely irrelevant. If my guys had aggro and we're deliberately interfering with someone's pull then I'd gladly sign up for whatever the standard punishment is, but like you said being on an encounter log isn't against the rules until you do something illegal with it. Everyone isn't guilty, I think most guilds did their best to get off the log, most of the durations are relatively short except for people that were at the spawn point.

[wycca]

Deru -

I'm not sure I understand your assertion that killing a mob with no FTE is equivalent to being on an agro list or agroing a raid mob on spawn. The latter two - I can't find any rules against those actions necessarily.

The reason you get off the agro list right away if you're on it is because it IS a rule violation to interfere with a pull or delay it, and because you want that new clean FTE if they screw up. Plus it's just polite.

AG's tracker getting FTE is bone-headed, but its not against the rules by itself. What is against the rules is using that FTE in any shape or form. AG did the right thing, they died right away. In that instance, they were free to try again for FTE like anyone else after the death. The only thing the rule prevented is them engaging using that first FTE.

Killing a mob you don't have FTE on is a blatant rule violation....the other two things I can't find any rules that seem to address these outside of the above. There is no rule against being on an agro list at some point (altho its pretty stupid for all the above reasons), there's no rule (until now) against having a tracker on a spawn point - if they get FTE its stupid, but if they die immediately the mob will reset and a proper FTE can be established. Well unless Taken is around and decides to roll the dice.

I am glad that we'll still be using the negotiation-first policy, just a bit perplexed that it wasn't used here. A good incentive to not violate rules is things like having to negotiate with 9 guilds or some such =P.

[Erati]

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

In that instance, they were free to try again for FTE like anyone else after the death. The only thing the rule prevented is them engaging using that first FTE.

it seems each guild has their own interpretation on what to do after an 'illegal' FTE occurs.

Some have wondered if zoning your entire raid force out of the zone would clear you to then zone back and try again.

Some have stated that as soon as you break one of the 'tracking rules' you are DQ'd ( this has been Takens stance as we have DQ'd ourselves twice now from FFA Naggy from our trackers FTEing/too many trackers in lair from killing giants )

If A-team assumes that AG could have tried for another FTE after their guild cleared their aggro from the encounter they illegally got FTE on, then I am sure some other guilds also have their own assumptions/internal rules.

I was under the impression that soon as your raid force acquires an illegal FTE via too many trackers at time of spawn or tracker FTEs....you are DQ'd....done....out...cannot engage no matter how many guilds wipe or how much time passes.

as for

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

I am glad that we'll still be using the negotiation-first policy, just a bit perplexed that it wasn't used here. A good incentive to not violate rules is things like having to negotiate with 9 guilds or some such =P.

Exactly who was suppose to be compensated from last night's encounter? AG started things off with an illegal FTE creating the ensuing mess...I get they cleared their aggro ( Nemce instantly died so he did not have a choice ) but if you watch Cuc's fraps there doesnt appear to be much of an opportunity for Sev to reset at all no matter what was being said in /tells or ooc

It literally would have taken a GM to pause all 150+ players in the zone, port them to the TT zone line, reset Sev and say GO for there to be any legit claims at last nights dragon

No guild was going to listen to another no matter how much logic was being hammered into /ooc. Even if 8 guilds DID coordinate the aggro reset, all it would have taken to prolong the lolz would be 1 jackass to keep on the aggro list and hide somewhere in EJ........

With that kind of mess its easy to see why Der/Sirk just deleted loot and did not punish 5+ guilds as they said they could have and thought about doing. We needed an encounter like Sev last night to shine a light on some of the gray areas with the new rules. Previously yes FTE yellow text was absolute king however there were no rules in place to make ced 'yellow text' not count for all intensive purposes. I think everyone is glossing over that point. I repeat.

Before the new tracking/autofire rule changes, there were zero rules in place that made the yellow FTE text 'non legit'. It was 100% of the time legit, cept when people kited mobs I guess.

Now, we have situations where the FTE message could not actually be representing 'legal' FTE. There is no hard line rules out about what to do with 'illegal FTE messages' so maybe now everyone knows.....maybe ?

Asking 7+ guilds to clear aggro is pretty much never going to happen as the final guild/person that has to clear aggro will do so in an advantageous time for their guild.

I can see it now TMO/IB instantly clear aggro and tail the dragons with their factioned pullers screaming at anyone on the hatelist to drop aggro for them to scoop it up while the guy with aggro is figuring he will just fuck up their encounter. It could get pretty messy.

[Ella`Ella]

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

I was under the impression that soon as your raid force acquires an illegal FTE via too many trackers at time of spawn or tracker FTEs....you are DQ'd....done....out...cannot engage no matter how many guilds wipe or how much time passes.

You are never forcibly disqualified from any encounter for any reason. However, it would be ill advised to break a raid rule and continue with your pull and kill the mob instead of forfeit. AG did, in fact, discontinue their pull whether it be by death, gate, zone, cap, or pot.

Any violation thereafter follows the same exact principle. AG is no longer relevant to the conversation as soon as Taken killed the target - unless, of course, it was a joint raid with Taken/AG, which I don't believe is the case.

In theory, as the rules currently are, you can kite the thing around the zone for 30 minutes if you want, just know that if you do so, you can never actually engage it without penalty.

[Erati]

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

You are never forcibly disqualified from any encounter for any reason. However, it would be ill advised to break a raid rule and continue with your pull and kill the mob instead of forfeit. AG did, in fact, discontinue their pull whether it be by death, gate, zone, cap, or pot.

Any violation thereafter follows the same exact principle. AG is no longer relevant to the conversation as soon as Taken killed the target - unless, of course, it was a joint raid with Taken/AG, which I don't believe is the case.

In theory, as the rules currently are, you can kite the thing around the zone for 30 minutes if you want, just know that if you do so, you can never actually engage it without penalty.

right I agree with that and I see your point.

However Cobble from A-team is under the impression that AG, had Taken not pulled Sev when we did, could have competed for a 'legal' FTE after the mob had reset.

I didnt think this was allowed and would have been a punishable offense.

If guilds are allowed to do this tho, then thats fine I just want all the raiding guilds to be on the same page in regards to 'legal kills' ( lol ).
Taken has passed two Naggys that we broke FTE rules on but would have regrouped when the mob reset and tried to kill him if the kill would stand.

I think this has been the longest lasting grey area from the implementation of the new raiding system....the 'anti poopsock on spawn' point rules

Every time guilds have been caught having too many players on the spawn point it has resulted in a suspension and deleted loot. Taken was then assuming that illegal tracker FTE would also fit the same bill as 'too many on spawn point' where no amount of gating/dieing/clearing would allow you to wind up killing the mob and keeping the loot.

[arsenalpow]

If someone gets DQed they're done. That was established with Dolj in Hate. Again, the main issue I think most people have is lack of consistency.

Week 1 of the new raiding agreement everything was pretty vague, BDA took a 2 week suspension at Trak for being "too close" which was the vaguest thing ever since it was never defined. BDA took suspension over that Naggy, IB took a suspension at draco but not at Fay. AG took a suspension when the system failed to record lockouts (but they should have known?) The point is NOTHING has been consistent.

I appreciate a logical non black and white system, logic should be used to interpret the situation. An example would that FE wizard that got FTE on CT right before TMO engaged it while the FE raid force had no intention of engaging and only wanted to abuse the FTE mechanic for loot. That was rightfully awarded to TMO. Or a decision I disagreed with, Taken wiping to Fay, kiting it around for 10 minutes, BDA pulling completely unaware that it was still aggroed by a Taken member, killing the mob, only to have the loot awarded to Taken when there was a 10 minute delay between Taken "FTE" and BDA being on the hate list. These are two entirely different situations but I'm just illustrating the range of rulings I've seen. I know TMO or IB could illustrate plenty of unsatisfactory VP rulings.

The one rule above all others is FTE, you don't kill what you don't FTE. Catherin willfully brought that mob to TT, and your guild willfully engaged it. I'm not looking for a pound of flesh, I'm looking for a consistent ruling and this ruling is so far from that. It's hard for me to stomach knowing that BDA is under suspension for almost the same thing and Taken in an even more blatant act isn't.

[Ella`Ella]

.

[Erati]

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

If someone gets DQed they're done. That was established with Dolj in Hate. Again, the main issue I think most people have is lack of consistency.

I agree with this but it just seemed after reading Cobble's post that A-team had a different idea on the matter.

So it is probably safe to assume that other guilds were not thinking about how being DQ'd works like BDA and Taken have used in practice.

As per the inconsistency of the rulings you mentioned, I agree that it makes things very tough to 'set a precedence' when things seemingly change week to week, month to month.

The only major change tho that I can point out in my guilds defense from last night's encounter was the fact that we are dealing with an 'illegal' FTE message aka tracker tagging.

This, to my knowledge, is the first time a mob has been downed after a tracker got FTE and no new message was ever given. ( anyone know?)

Had Taken killed Sev after OUR tracker got FTE then well yes that would be incredibly dumb and retarded.

What we did last night tho, after watching Cuc's video, was not much different than anyone else out there throwing Javs at Sev. We wanted to see how it would be ruled and wanted to set a precedence for when there is a shitshow encounter that would be damn near impossible to have aggro cleared.

Honestly though, how in the fuck would have anyone coordinated an aggro clear in that mess. The encounter would have probably been purposely prolonged til new taggers were in place.

I get that Taken is in the wrong for killing a mob we did not have yellow text on, but to paint this like previous situations that did not involve 'illegal' FTE messages dont really work.