Raid Rules / FAQ

[Sirken]

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

I saw you post about this a month or so ago. maybe less. Is what Sirken posted part of your revamp? And when can we expect the rest?

Nilbog could answer this better than i can, but no, these rules do not yet reflect what Nilbog has spoke about. if/when that happens, the rules will be modified to reflect the changes. as far as when to expect it, id imagine this is getting juggled with the million other things on Nilbogs plate.

[Writ3r]

I guess to put it into question format, will there ever be consideration in the future to make that aspect classic again and change/make a few other rules to indeed support it? (Especially with more content adding more variables)

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Q: What classifies a mob as "Engaged"?
A: A mob is classified as engaged as long as it has aggro on at least one player.

Q: Both raids got here simultaneously. What do we do?
A: First to Engage.

Not a question about the rules per se, but a question about if we could be provided with the tools needed to determine who had FTE to reduce potential for conflict and so that the playerbase can better police/manage themselves.

As it has been historically impossible to determine who had FTE with near-simultaneous engagements, prox aggro vs. damage aggro, having a mob charm the initial puller and having no one on the aggro list at the time it is re-tagged, etc., the FTE raid rules have largely depended on after-the-fact GM intervention/re-distribution of items after looking at engagement logs.

This is burdensome for the GMs, and forces guilds into a position where they can't disengage from the mob and let the other guild attempt on their own without risking losing loot rights if they did in fact have FTE.

Any updates/thoughts into programming in a FTE shout for raid target mobs? I.e.:

Talendor shouts, "Yendor from Bregan D'Aerth is the first to challenge me... may his death be swift!"

Upon clearing the hate list and returning to seek mode:

Talendor shouts, "I have defeated my enemy... who is next to feel my wrath?!"

Then, all raid forces present know exactly where FTE stands, can back off and let the guild who got FTE attempt the encounter on their own, sink or swim, and no need for after-the-fact GM intervention because it would be clear who had FTE and anyone looting from a force that did not have FTE would be dealt with severe punishment.

Yes, it's not classic, but it would simply tell us all at the time of engagement what the staff has to tell us after-the-fact in the current state in order to resolve FTE disputes.

[Sirken]

Originally Posted by Writ3r [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess to put it into question format, will there ever be consideration in the future to make that aspect classic again and change/make a few other rules to indeed support it? (Especially with more content adding more variables)

i see what you're doing. but heres the problem, i can not predict the future. we believe this is the best, most fair way to do things based on the tools and resources available to us at the present time. if/when things change, a post will be made, and the rules will be modified. until that time there will be no further information available. i apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.

as of now, this is the staff's answer to anything in regards to the spawn variance.

Q: Why is there a spawn variance? This isn't classic!
A: While we strive to be as accurate as we can in terms of classic content, this is something that we feel is necessary to keep things running smooth. We believe the spawn variance method promotes both fairness and competition. Please note that we do not refresh the mob spawn times with a crash or patch. On live all raid targets re-spawned with a patch which usually caused bunches of raid targets to spawn. So on live Nagafen or Vox kills were not always exactly one week apart.


i consider this question thoroughly answered, and will be ignoring or deleting any future posts on the subject of why theres a spawn variance or anything else surrounding spawn timers.

[Sirken]

yendor, i agree with most everything u posted, and we have discussed different ways of implementing that idea, however, each idea (including yours) has been shot down so far because it would be to easy to manipulate the logs to tell a different story.

right now its a PITA. players know it, staff knows it. when we have a better way, we will use the better way, i assure you. because as much as the players hate waiting for staff to sort all that junk out, the staff hates having to check encounter logs each and every time a mob pops.

please trust me when i say i honestly feel your frustration, and that we are working on it.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

yendor, i agree with most everything u posted, and we have discussed different ways of implementing that idea, however, each idea (including yours) has been shot down so far because it would be to easy to manipulate the logs to tell a different story.

I'm not saying the FTE shouts would be in place of encounter logs -- they'd just merely be something the players can use at the time of engage to know who actually had FTE without needing GM involvement after the fact.

You'd still have the encounter logs behind the scenes.

If you catch a guild trying to manipulate logs to tell a different story, and they send in a petition that doesn't match what you have, perma-disband the guild for intentionally trying to manipulate the truth -- make the penalty so severe that it's not worth it to them to try. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Xadion]

glad most rules have been clarified, I see nothing that is really new, just clarified (training non raid target) the only real change is no more first 15 claim, and that's cool...but FTE socks will still happen I am sure lol.

[achtung]

Thanks for taking the time Sirken.

Would love to see all patches trigger full repop!

[Sirken]

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

I'm not saying the FTE shouts would be in place of encounter logs -- they'd just merely be something the players can use at the time of engage to know who actually had FTE without needing GM involvement after the fact.

You'd still have the encounter logs behind the scenes.

If you catch a guild trying to manipulate logs to tell a different story, and they send in a petition that doesn't match what you have, perma-disband the guild for intentionally trying to manipulate the truth -- make the penalty so severe that it's not worth it to them to try. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yendor send me a PM if u want to discuss this further. id prefer to keep this thread for questions, not discussions [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Llabak]

Any chance of simulated patch days with full respawns? Those full respawn days are gobs of fun.