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

[Rogean]

<iframe width=1200 height=500 src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-NlZ-AUIZE9oINz2v8R04aL44mEUL3YzhzGkMszzH4A/pubhtml?widget=true&amp;headers=false"></iframe>

[Derubael]

Bottom line here is everyone screwed up - we could ding AG, IB, BDA, Taken, and TMO for some kind of illegal pull/raid interference/<insert clustfuckeryhere> but we aren't going to do that. This situation is cut and dry based simply on the merit that it was so ridiculous.

[arsenalpow]

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

Bottom line here is everyone screwed up - we could ding AG, IB, BDA, Taken, and TMO for some kind of illegal pull/raid interference/<insert clustfuckeryhere> but we aren't going to do that. This situation is cut and dry based simply on the merit that it was so ridiculous.

How do you figure? Being on a hate list means nothing especially when the majority of the people on the list got out ASAP. Look at the durations. The BDA people all bailed out ASAP (Trouble had to run to a zoneline) and necromis gained aggro when Sev arrived at TT because he missed the call to move.

The staff has been screaming FTE above all and there's multiple situations where precedence has been set (the IB/Taken Fay, the IB draco, BDA at Naggy) where suspensions were handed out. I'm not sure how you can beat the drum for consistent punishment while BDA is serving a class R suspension for a FFA Naggy we beat down at 10% and Taken just mauled a 100% Sev fully well knowing they didn't have FTE.

[-Catherin-]

Lot of people trying to pretend they are clean in this situation. Lot of people also didn't know how to handle this situation, and did the same thing that Taken did.

Only big difference here is that Taken got the kill, was honest at the get-go about it and immediately asked for a ruling and were not looking for people to get in trouble either. While everyone else gets out the torches and pitchforks in hopes of some gauntlets of fiery might and a dragon bag.

Anyone who was actually there at the scene and witnessed what was going on knew that several other people had the same exact thing in mind that Taken did. The situation was already too far gone. Nobody knew how to handle this situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zz...ature=youtu.be

turn it up to high def, watch closely at 25 seconds onward. Who is that also using javs to hop onto the FTE list on a clearly engaged mob? This was going on all over this place, but this is proof of at least one right here for you to view. Just another example of if it was not us it would have been someone else, and that nobody was really clear on how to handle this situation of an illegal engage.

Accept this ruling as something that will hopefully makes things a little better going forward.

[bktroost]

I'm not too concerned with the ruling, in this case it seems the only real fair thing to do. The logs clearly show multiple guilds making an effort to capitalize on an engage that no one had any precedent to refer to. I don't really blame them, and even if I did, I expect nothing less as certain guilds have shown a propensity for this in the past.

What I would like to request is a reevaluation of the CoTH mage tracker rule. Can we consider the technical nightmare this potentially can cause in the future? Sirken states that no one is allowed to park near enough to the mob to get aggro. How can we lawyer that? In order to even gain that information there will be countless "oops, sorry I was trying to figure out how close I can be for future encounters."

I'm not trying to strong arm or push GMs into changing the rule, but I just encourage you guys to consider a slight alteration to what I see as an amazing campaign against autofire.

[Derubael]

^ I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to stay outside of aggro range. It's not too difficult to figure out where a mob will spawn and to stay just close enough to see when it pops.

If anyone has any suggestions for a better way to handle FTE and engages, feel free to cook something up and post it in this forum.

[bktroost]

Ya know, if you made high end ranger track zone wide and told people that they had to be at a ZL then you could do away with a lot of rules. All of this proximity stuff would be removed, there would be no need for 2 taggers or a need to differentiate between trackers and taggers. There would be no rule lawyering ect. If you want to engage a mob you anticipate popping you sit at ZL or are camped at ZL.

Rangers would finally be used for their intended purpose, people would need to lvl rangers up past 46 and surpass their current lvl of DT bot usefulness.

Obviously once the mob pops you can run people anywhere you want (if you have a preferred kill spot in zone), but essentially Raid tracking would look like 1 ranger and 1 bard per guild sitting at a ZL watching a his track. Not because of a 2 tag rule or anything, but because that's all you need. No spawn poop socking, no FTE clusters like tonight, no CoTH ducking nonsense, no autofire, no lawyering of any kind other than who gets the first FTE. If you do it this way you will likely always have a bard/ranger combo get the FTE and hold it on the first attempt since rangers bows outrange dragon charm and bard resists keep them that way +MR song and if the zone wide ranger track requires 55 + he will have significant lvl resist also.

I'm sure there are hundred of proposals that could be submitted as suggestions. Thanks for opening this up to discuss and valuing our opinions.

Part of the trouble is we don't know exactly what you and Sirken have permission from Rogean to implement. I'm sure making ranger track relevant would require an okay from Rogy and Nillybog but it just seems super classic to me. Ranger's priority purpose becomes tracking and bards becomes racing! Seems almost too perfect in the lore sense to be true, haha.

[Derubael]

We aren't going to be modifying anymore code to fix the raid scene. I think we believe theres already enough tools for success as it is.

As far as what we're allowed to change, we can implement any policy change so long as everyone agrees on it. If everyone can't agree, we can still implement changes but need a senior staff meeting where the four of us all agree. We know our system isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, so until someone comes up with a better solution we're going to stick with it.

[bktroost]

Okay, although I still think swapping ranger for mages is something everyone would benefit from if there was some way to remove them off the scene. Thanks for the clarification.

[wycca]

Catherin, I don't think there is anything unclear about the rules in this situation. It's not somehow "complicated".

Do you have FTE on a raid mob? No? Ok, so your tracker/taggers need to die, zone out, or camp. If you do not have FTE on a raid mob, you DO NOT ENGAGE AND KILL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. The raid mob has to reset and a new FTE message given (to you) for it to be legal to kill it.

The rules are quite clear on this - how is it confusing? I'm guessing the other guilds there today know it's not confusing (in fact some have been raid banned for it, so I'm SURE they're clear how to handle these situations).

You guys tagged a mob 9 seconds after FTE was established. You killed a mob you did not have FTE on. This is a violated raid rule. Everything after the, "you killed a mob you did not have FTE on", doesn't matter - that's the rule violation, and it's not confusing.

Deru - the reason there aren't any Asgard, AT, or Omni on that hate list is because we followed raid rules. After we saw another guild get FTE, we waited for a reset. BDA and AG also did the right thing - they either died, or zoned/camped. They didn't break any rules because they did what was expected. The only guild who broke the rules was Taken. This isn't some complicated scenario where every guild is somehow just as wrong as Taken. Taken blatantly broke the rules and had no way of knowing that they'd accidentally be the first legit guild on the engage list. The first legit guild may have been AT, Omni, or Asgard because we followed rules and didn't tag it after the FTE - we'll never know because Taken broke the rules and cost us our shot at a FTE. We'll never know if AG, BDA, IB, TMO or someone else would have gotten a proper FTE after dying/camping/etc....because Taken broke clearly defined rules.

There's another thing I'm concerned about here - the staff isn't letting us do what you told us to do - negotiate first. We didn't break any rules, but we most assuridly did suffer a loss because of Taken's actions. This is a clear cut scenario for negotiations prior to GM involvement. Because of this ruling, we can't negotiate for our lost FTE opportunity. It seems pointless to go tell us all to negotiate it out, and that "you have all the power"...then when a situation happens where its practical to go negotiate it out before seeking gm involvement, you're like, oh it's a giant cluster (it's not - there is only 1 guild who broke the rules here), and we're merely deleting the loot - unlike when similar situations have occurred in the past. I thought the negotiation thing was going to be the go-to in these cases, the violations are clear here, although only apparent to Taken in retrospect. Guilds have successfully negotiated multi-guild situations (including Taken with BDA/TMO on VS - so I know Taken knows how to do it)....but today not only is that not what you decided to do in response by rushing to a GM ruling....you're not even letting us negotiate for our loss like you told us to do!

I'm perplexed and more than a little disappointed. I did a bunch of talking-up of the negotiation-first policy you guys implemented to not only my own guild officers, but to a bunch of other guilds' leadership. I even thanked you personally (and Sirken) for giving us the tools to resolve things on our own, in ways that are not possible for GM's to do (ie GM's can delete, ban, and thats about it) and because it reduced the headaches you guys have to deal with. It's worked well in multi-guild disputes....why not use it today? Are you no longer sticking with the "negotiation first" policy - if so, please let us know so we can react appropriately. The negotiation first policy actually allowed for more player dynamics and I think would end up building more goodwill overall. I thought it was a great way to get some sanity in place for Velious - which has the potential to be 1000x as insane for petitions as Kunark is.

Either use the negotiation-first policy or let us know the negotiation-first policy is dead, but please don't pick and choose, because it's very frustrating when rules are in place for 1 situation but different in another - and it certainly sucks that a blatant rule violation like killing a mob you don't have FTE on is getting a pass on both any form of GM punishment (which has been severe for other guilds) and also the forced player negotiations pre-GM involvement.