Stalling on engages

[arsenalpow]

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

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

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

[arsenalpow]

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

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

<3
Sirks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sirken]

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

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


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

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

[-Catherin-]

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

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

[Derubael]

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

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

or

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

or

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

Originally Posted by Derubael, a couple hours ago, in the post you should have read

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arsenalpow]

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

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by Derubael

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

[Ella`Ella]

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

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

Define, "satisfaction".

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

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

[Ektar]

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

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

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

[bktroost]

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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