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

[Sirken]

Hail my fellow Norrathians,

We all know that in the heat of battle things can sometimes not go exactly as planned, and if someone sees somebody else do something, they immediately try to match it or one up it in order to maintain a competitive edge.

That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations.

Doing this, figuratively takes a big old dump on the entire purpose for the Staff telling the players we don’t want them poopsocking the raid spawn locations. We also do not want KoS trackers to be able to get afk FTE’s, as we feel this is more in line with using autofire, than it is in the spirit of the rules set forth, rules that, I will remind you, were all agreed on by the players.

Consider this a warning to all guilds, the next time this happens, you can expect a guild suspension. It’s something we take very seriously, and something we do not want to see repeated.

The loots from today’s Severilous will be deleted because the first two guilds on the FTE list were on the raid spawn location, and because the guild that ended up killing and taking the loots did not have a proper FTE, as they did not allow the mob to reset before engaging it.

<3
The Staff

[-Catherin-]

Thank you for the quick ruling!

[arsenalpow]

Precedent has already been set for a situation like this. BDA is being punished for killing the last 10% of a Nagafen by losing an entire class R Nagafen. Taken just killed a mob that was AG's FTE at 100% and they're going to skate? That's not appropriate or consistent.

Either rescind BDA's punishment or follow the precedent that was set.

[phiren]

To clarify: AG understands our FTE was not legit, as it was with a tracker, which we know is not allowed. We did not attempt to pull / kite / CoTH / etc. We died immediately. It was never our intention to FTE with a tracker, we are well aware of the rules, and will be more careful next time.

Not knowing exact spawn spots due to inexperience is our fault. Would it be possible for the GMs (or experienced guilds) to provide a complete list of exact pixel spawn spots for all outdoor raid targets? I know a couple, but not all.

This would help every guild new to the scene not be able to use ignorance as an excuse. If we knew Sev was going to spawn @ 1243.4, 4325.4, we would have been a mile away to avoid this.

Sirken doesn't want trackers around spawn point .. understood .. but what are these spawn points we need to steer clear of?

~Phiren
Azure Guard

[wycca]

Two questions -

- IB killed a mob they did not have FTE on and got raid suspended for 2 weeks and lost loot. Taken kills a mob they did not have FTE on and loses loot. Could you please help me understand the difference in rulings? Was Taken's rule violation less severe than IB's in some way?

- Policy per Deru has been that we are to negotiate before asking for a GM ruling. We had intended to do this with Taken - does this ruling eliminate our ability to negotiate for our lost FTE opportunity? Each guild there should be able to negotiate - as we saw TMO do with Taken and BDA both on a VS train - correct? That's the penalty for breaking rules - you have to work things out with every guild you harm via the negotiation-first policy - at least, thats how it appeared to be intended to work.

[-Catherin-]

However the Faydedar situation and this situation are not alike.

One involved a legal FTE where the other involved an illegal FTE. We immediately petitioned this matter as it took place so that everyone would have a clear ruling on the situation. We were not looking to get anyone in trouble, but rather a ruling. We were also prepared for whatever dropped to go to whoever had the first legitimate FTE, even though we were pretty confident that was still us anyways.

Regardless with people not being able to sit directly on the spawn point this problem should "hopefully" now be resolved. This is no change for us because we never parked our mages on the spawn point anyways. I'm of the personal opinion that CoHing to raid targets for FTE should be eliminated entirely though.

[Derubael]

Just to clarify a couple things that weren't explained in the OP.

Here is our 62 player long encounter log with 7 guilds present on the hate list of Sev before he was killed:

1 Nemce ( (L) Azure Guard 60 Magician 18:04:56 0 18:05:03 7 41897 0 0
2 Nemce's Pet (SumWaterR14) (L) Azure Guard 48 Rogue 18:04:56 0 18:05:03 7 41897 83 295
3 Zepharis's Pet (SumWaterR13) Inglourious Basterds 45 Rogue 18:05:00 4 18:05:26 26 40612 368 1248
4 Zepharis Inglourious Basterds 55 Magician 18:05:00 4 18:06:58 118 40612 0 0
5 Gnomb's Pet (SumWaterR13) Inglourious Basterds 45 Rogue 18:05:00 4 18:05:31 31 40612 195 1067
6 Gnomb Inglourious Basterds 56 Magician 18:05:00 4 18:05:31 31 40612 0 0
7 Theya ( (O) Taken 60 Bard 18:05:05 9 18:09:23 258 41363 0 3970
8 Golden The Mystical Order 55 Bard 18:05:16 20 18:08:11 175 41011 0 0
9 Conjour's Pet (SumWaterR14) Bregan D`Aerth 48 Rogue 18:05:23 27 18:05:26 3 40930 143 499
10 Conjour Bregan D`Aerth 60 Magician 18:05:23 27 18:06:36 73 40930 0 0
11 Ollie's Pet (SumWaterR13 Bregan D`Aerth 45 Rogue 18:05:24 28 18:05:32 8 40930 182 364
12 Ollie Bregan D`Aerth 56 Magician 18:05:24 28 18:06:08 44 40930 0 0
13 Troubledour (O) Bregan D`Aerth 60 Bard 18:05:41 45 18:09:14 213 40930 0 0
14 Moodie Taken 60 Bard 18:05:49 53 18:10:26 277 41363 911 1452
15 Ennio (O) Bregan D`Aerth 60 Bard 18:05:50 54 18:09:10 200 40930 0 60
16 Saragirl The Mystical Order 60 Ranger 18:05:56 60 18:06:37 41 41011 38 50
17 Yibz ( The Mystical Order 60 Bard 18:07:20 144 18:07:27 7 41011 0 0
18 Gremlin (O) Bregan D`Aerth 60 Monk 18:09:17 261 18:10:26 69 0 0 0
19 Gorruk Taken 60 Warrior 18:09:23 267 18:10:26 63 42052 1628 6330
20 Polemios Taken 57 Warrior 18:09:28 272 18:10:26 58 42153 760 842
21 Draenor Taken 60 Rogue 18:09:29 273 18:10:26 57 42214 6582 1892
22 Healier Taken 59 Cleric 18:09:29 273 18:10:26 57 42052 0 1232
23 Tekila Taken 53 Monk 18:09:30 274 18:10:26 56 42186 1401 1796
24 Cukazi Taken 60 Monk 18:09:32 276 18:10:26 54 42091 398 461
25 Eratou (O) Taken 60 Paladin 18:09:33 277 18:10:26 53 42019 1045 1372
26 Moostacheo aken 51 Druid 18:09:33 277 18:10:26 53 42016 0 1296
27 Jonwayne Taken 60 Rogue 18:09:33 277 18:10:26 53 42214 6065 1726
28 Dolphy Taken 60 Enchanter 18:09:33 277 18:10:26 53 42038 0 850
29 Shidashi Taken 60 Wizard 18:09:36 280 18:10:26 50 42186 2475 2625
30 Weasy Taken 60 Bard 18:09:37 281 18:10:26 49 42052 0 0
31 Noctyrix's Pet (skel_pet_47_) Taken 47 Warrior 18:09:37 281 18:10:26 49 42014 477 1182
32 Noctyrix ( Taken 60 Necromancer 18:09:37 281 18:10:26 49 42014 0 2310
33 Guaire (O) Taken 60 Shadow Knight 18:09:37 281 18:10:26 49 42213 693 2455
34 Wizardstoner Taken 60 Wizard 18:09:39 283 18:10:26 47 42052 4577 6125
35 Traps Taken 60 Druid 18:09:39 283 18:10:26 47 0 0 332
36 Xxamot Taken 60 Necromancer 18:09:40 284 18:10:26 46 42014 0 161
37 Fingon (O) Taken 60 Druid 18:09:40 284 18:10:26 46 42019 0 2148
38 Necromis Bregan D`Aerth 60 Necromancer 18:09:41 285 18:10:26 45 0 0 931
39 Bluemagic Taken 60 Wizard 18:09:41 285 18:10:26 45 42016 3300 3500
40 Xxamot's Pet (skel_pet_47_) ( Taken 47 Warrior 18:09:42 286 18:10:26 44 42014 171 828
41 Tzen Taken 54 Cleric 18:09:42 286 18:10:26 44 42052 0 640
42 Hermaphroditey Taken 60 Warrior 18:09:43 287 18:10:26 43 42186 2009 3545
43 Metu Taken 55 Paladin 18:09:43 287 18:10:26 43 42016 225 416
44 Jonasty Taken 60 Shaman 18:09:46 290 18:10:26 40 0 0 582
45 Cromcruach (O) Taken 60 Druid 18:09:46 290 18:10:26 40 42213 582 4296
46 Farsight Taken 60 Wizard 18:09:47 291 18:10:26 39 0 923 4375
47 Xephiros Taken 60 Warrior 18:09:48 292 18:10:26 38 0 1616 2531
48 Molinior Taken 54 Wizard 18:09:48 292 18:10:26 38 42038 1280 1360
49 Boombada Taken 54 Wizard 18:09:49 293 18:10:26 37 42052 820 1360
50 Indefinite Taken 60 Druid 18:09:51 295 18:10:26 35 42014 0 832
51 Roon Taken 53 Monk 18:09:51 295 18:10:26 35 42019 140 271
52 Kleptomaniac Taken 51 Rogue 18:09:52 296 18:10:26 34 42038 68 179
53 Mamael Taken 54 Wizard 18:10:07 311 18:10:26 19 42091 397 2224
54 Bier Inglourious Basterds 60 Monk 18:10:08 312 18:10:26 18 40612 0 0
55 Grenade Taken 60 Wizard 18:10:10 314 18:10:26 16 42014 0 3330
56 Brillayan's Pet (skel_pet_44_) Taken 44 Monk 18:10:16 320 18:10:26 10 42186 271 595
57 Brillayan Taken 58 Necromancer 18:10:16 320 18:10:26 10 42186 0 376
58 Psyphon Taken 60 Enchanter 18:10:17 321 18:10:26 9 42091 0 850
59 Mirgan Omni 60 Bard 18:10:23 327 18:10:26 3 42153 0 0
60 Fifield Taken 52 Bard 18:10:24 328 18:10:26 2 42091 0 0
61 Mikeo Divinity 60 Warrior 18:10:24 328 18:10:26 2 42108 37 135
62 Tobius Taken 55 Warrior 18:10:25 329 18:10:26 1 42019 110 94

As you can see, this was quite a clusterfuck, with even Omni and Divinity hopping in at the end. Oddly enough, 5 whole BDA show up in the middle for some reason, with AG getting FTE and dying 7 seconds later, but IB had a mage who was a secondary to AG's fte and kept the encounter rolling.

Taken grabbed the first 'legit' FTE, with THeya at #7 on the list. 11 seconds later TMO shows up for some reason, and then BDA piles on with their pets and a few officers for good measure.

Taken brings it back to camp finally after a lengthy 5 minute pull, and Divinity and Omni decide to take a stab cause fuckit why not.

Basically, everyone screwed up, so we find its best to just delete the loot, remind everyone to track far from the spawn from here on out and respect FTE as the end all be all of target engagement.

[bktroost]

Let's look at this potential solution. By saying " it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations" you are giving us a spirit of a rule and not the rule itself.

What I think that means is: "don't stand so close to the spawn point that, if the mob were to spawn, you would snatch aggro."

The only way for guilds to actually adhere to that rule is for every guild to know 2 pieces of crucial information. 1. Where exactly (x,y cords) does a mob spawn and 2. exactly how large is a mob's radius (in actual units).

Every guild is going to want to stand in range enough to view the mobs when they spawn, that is a given. But, beyond that, every guild is going to want to stand absolutely as close to that spawn point as possible without breaking the rules. If a guild says "I know what the GMs are saying, they want us to stay way away so they don't have to lawyer things, so I'm going to put my mage over here where I know I am safe" then they will ALWAYS loos FTE to the guild that rides the rules like a lawyer-- its too much of a disadvantage.

So, we either have to have that specific info on all of the FTE raid mobs (does this include Noble clickfest?) and their radius of aggro (also, means trackers need to be 60 otherwise they will increase their aggro radius... sitting/standing?) or we have to look at a new solution.

I love mages and I think that this change to the raid scene has been the first thing on this server to make the mage relevant again, but what is the disadvantage to removing them from the tracking picture? If we remove mages then everyone will use rangers and they will just be used to smash a /gu "X POPPED LOG OVER NOW" button or something and the tagger bard gets to do all the leg work himself right? If its a ranger tracker then you just have to be in tracking radius and no one cares how close to the mob you are.

I'm not disgruntled, I'm just trying to be practical and understand what needs to be done in the future.

[wycca]

Actually Catherin, the violation is the same. Who has initial FTE or whether its legit is moot. It's about killing a mob YOU do not have FTE on. This is why it must reset and you are not allowed to engage before then.

That Taken was somehow the first "legit" guild is also irrelevant, they killed a mob they did not have FTE on, plain and simple. This was an intentional act of rule breaking, an accidental - oh, they were 1st legit guild when we reviewed the log - does not change that they broke the rules. It should not mitigate the penalty, or negotiation-first responsibility of guilds because of that fluke.

[Argh]

Bringing back the 'mages can't be trackers' clause (Trak excepted) would eliminate any similar situation from happening again.

People are now going to either a) park non-kos mages on the spawn point or b) park kos-mages just outside of aggro range.

If the goal is to eliminate people parking at or near targets, then getting rid of mage trackers is the only real way to accomplish that. I don't think anyone really wants to continue chain ducking coths but they're all willing to at the moment because its necessary to do so.

[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]

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=W4zz1aIKuDQ&feature=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.

[Derubael]

Deru - the reason there aren't any Asgard, AT, or Omni on that hate list is because we followed raid rules.

58 Psyphon Taken 60 Enchanter 18:10:17 321 18:10:26 9 42091 0 850
59 Mirgan Omni 60 Bard 18:10:23 327 18:10:26 3 42153 0 0
60 Fifield Taken 52 Bard 18:10:24 328 18:10:26 2 42091 0 0

Who is this Mirgan fellow with an omni tag 59 people in?

There are seven guilds on this log. Seven. This isn't your basic "GuildA has FTE GuildB killed target."

We still intend to let players work out their own disputes, but because of the number of guilds involved we decided it was best to just end it quickly to get this out of the way.

[arsenalpow]

This Omni fellow that had aggro for all of 3 seconds because Sev died. I don't give a shit that Taken killed the mob, I'm pissed because you're still picking and choosing punishments. The situation still boils down to Guild A FTE Guild B killed. IB did it and got a suspension, BDA did 10% of a FFA Nagafen and is losing A CLASS R NAGAFEN. Taken does it and nothing?? That doesn't make one bit of sense.

[-Catherin-]

Going to have to suspend everyone, so what exactly is there to negotiate... Who gets the longest suspension?

Everyone but Taken, Ateam, and... Omni? were sitting directly on the spawn.

Everyone but Ateam inappropriately engages the dragon

Taken kills the Dragon.



This is looking good for Ateam.

[arsenalpow]

Going to have to suspend everyone, so what exactly is there to negotiate... Who gets the longest suspension?

Everyone but Taken, Ateam, and... Omni? were sitting directly on the spawn.

Everyone but Ateam inappropriately engages the dragon

Taken kills the Dragon.



This is looking good for Ateam.

Stop being willfully ignorant to how this stuff works. Look at Rogean's logs since they have headers. Look at the column towards the right marked "length" that's the amount of time someone had aggro. Being on an encounter list isn't the best thing but getting the fuck out of there is the correct course of action once you realize you don't have FTE. Notice the very short lengths of time for many of the people at the top of the list. Notice the two Taken bards (you and moodie) who have the highest length of time aggroed. Sev needed to reset and he didn't. I'm going to assume (which probably isn't fair) that Taken's call was that the FTE was illegal, therefore the guild that killed it would be awarded loot or some other convoluted scenario so let's drag the mob to TT zoneline and roll the dice.

There no precedence for punishing a guild for being on an encounter log. Omni actively avoided Inny during that class C kill and that was promptly resolved. There however has been multiple instances of precedence when it comes to actively killing a mob knowing you don't have FTE. I'm not angling to punish Taken, I want precedence followed.

BDA is currently being punished for basically the same thing. We engaged a FFA Nagafen that Taken had FTE on at 10%. TMO petitioned that us assisting on the last 10% potentially prevented Taken from wiping thus potentially taking loot out of the mouths of poor starving TMO members. BDA is currently suspended from our next class R rotation Naggy from an FFA encounter. Go ahead and read that again. The GM staff decided that BDA should lose our next class R rotation slot Nagafen (which is a player made agreement) that will come weeks from now because we assisted Taken through no previous agreement on 10% of a dragon. Taken knew they didn't have FTE, yet they still dragged the mob to TT and downed it. Where is the consistency?? Why not follow precedence?? It's patently absurd that BDA is under a class R suspension and Taken wouldn't be.

Either rescind BDA's suspension or punish Taken. You can't have it both ways.

[Ella`Ella]

.

[Derubael]

The GM staff decided that BDA should lose our next class R rotation slot Nagafen (which is a player made agreement) that will come weeks from now because we assisted Taken through no previous agreement on 10% of a dragon.

I guess I need to better illustrate my point:

http://i.imgur.com/srXHxCO.jpg

^as you can see by my excellent mspaint circles, There are multiple guilds who grabbed aggro even 30 seconds or a minute after the engage went off. Every one of these guilds are potentially breaking the rule you are referencing above. And of course we'd have to hit AG as well, for the FTE tracker fuckup. So we're basically looking at suspending 3-4 guilds from the next Sev engage - including BDA - over this one pull.

None of you guys should have any business being on that log 30 - 60 seconds after the fact if we are going to follow the "fte is king" rule here.

I circled the length as well, representing how long each player had aggro (ie, these people did not camp to get off the hate list if their 'length' is over ~30 seconds)

This is why we aren't suspending Taken, or anyone else. This situation is not the same as other FTE violations we've had in the past, nor is it close enough to the Nagafen situation Chest is referring to for it to be used as a precedent.

Edit: I forgot to circle the IB and TMO guys, but I circled their length, which was almost 2 minutes in IB's case and nearly 3 in TMO's.

[Derubael]

The rule is if it isn't your FTE then you don't touch the mob. There's no caveats, there's no special circumstances governing illegal FTEs. The mob must reset. Period.

^Given the situation, I think we can be flexible here. I don't think it's appropriate to suspend you all given the clusterfuck that this pull became.

[arsenalpow]

Being on an encounter list is entirely different from actively killing the mob. Look at the people at the top of the list that immediately gated or died. Ennio and Trouble ran to a zoneline at Selos speed and did not have a dragon in tow. You're conflating the two issues. The bottom line is you're absolute decree of "only kill it if you FTE" was broken and your using irrelevant facts to justify a decision. Look at that Talendor FFA where there were 6 guilds going for him, IB had initial FTE, wiped, then FTE bounced around until Taken had FTE and killed it. I'm sure all 6 guilds were on that log. The point is the encounter log means nothing in an FFA situation where multiple guilds are jockeying for the kill. What matters is FTE and that's why the ruling is absurd.

[Derubael]

Showing up on that encounter log a minute into the engage is essentially breaking the rule all by itself*. So our two options here are:

1) do what we did, and delete the loot

2) ding everyone on this list except Divinity and Omni a Sev.

That's our line of thinking, and our only two options. We think we picked the better one.

edit: *showing up on an encounter log isn't actually breaking the FTE rule all by itself, but could be raid interference depending on how someone shows up on that log and what they do to try and get off of it.

[arsenalpow]

Showing up on that encounter log a minute into the engage is essentially breaking the rule all by itself. So our two options here are:

1) do what we did, and delete the loot

2) ding everyone on this list except Divinity and Omni a Sev.

That's our line of thinking, and our only two options. We think we picked the better one.

What is the precedence for that? Where's the rule stating you can't be on an encounter log for an FFA encounter. Encounter logs are paramount for class specific mobs, lockouts for class R and potentially moving to class C if you already aren't. FFA mobs are a different animal and the way the FFA system is structured you have these types of issues every time.

Go through the last heavily contested FFA mobs. I can guarantee it's a cluttered log full of multiple guilds. The last FFA Talendor that Taken won, one of the more recent Naggys, I'm sure the last FFA VS where indignation trained BDA and IB sniped it, it's always a shitshow. The basic rule always applied though, FTE dictates priority. If you want to ding someone it's on the Taken bards that dragged Sev to the zoneline to be engaged. The majority of people on that list bailed out ASAP.

[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]

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


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]

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]

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]

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.

[Argh]

Made a chart for our rocket science rules:

http://i.imgur.com/UWe7AAq.png

[Erati]

Made a chart for our rocket science rules:

http://i.imgur.com/UWe7AAq.png

you do realize the yellow text was put in so players could police themselves and behave better upon a dragon being engaged in front of a zerg of guilds. just a graphical representation that is avail to avoid confusion....the GMs still have the power to look up encounter logs and point out who has legit FTE according to the rules.

what occurred last night was the very first instance of a dragon being killed without a 'legal' yellow text, something that has never happened since the autofire/tracker rule update

Your flowchart became null and void soon as new rules were implemented and changed the fact that sometimes a FTE shout is not actually legit FTE.

[wycca]

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.


Thanks for clarifying that breaking the rules was intentional and you just wanted to take a gamble on a GM ruling. How very noble of you to break the rules in order to clear up a question that absolutely everybody else in the zone knew the answer to...and informed you of during your 5min run to your raid.

[Erati]

Thanks for clarifying that breaking the rules was intentional and you just wanted to take a gamble on a GM ruling to try to keep loot. How noble of you to break the rules to clear up a question that absolutely everybody else in the zone knew the answer to...and informed you of during your 5min run to the raid.

show me the rule that says anything about killing a mob after a 'illegal' tracker FTE pls

[Argh]

what occurred last night was the very first instance of a dragon being killed without a 'legal' yellow text, something that has never happened since the autofire/tracker rule update

What occurred last night is far from a novel occurrence. It is no different than if a guild who had more than two trackers got an FTE. If they continue with the pull, they'll be breaking the rules. It takes a strange leap in logic to conclude that since the guild in front of you broke the rules then there are no longer any rules.

The chart is valid. Please consult it next time.

[wycca]

show me the rule that says anything about killing a mob after a 'illegal' tracker FTE pls

http://www.project1999.com/raid.php

http://i.imgur.com/yiXDAOz.jpg


"All raid mobs provide an "FTE Shout" that show what guild has engaged. Kill stealing will be severely disciplined."


Did your guild get the FTE Shout? No? - Kill it anyways? - Rule violation.

[-Catherin-]

you guys are very good at ignoring every other moving part in this situation that you are guilty of too. As well as this situation being completely different from anything else that has ever happened.

Taken sought to finally receive some direction on what would happen in this unique situation. Now we all have it. I hear all of this talk of negotiation, but there is nothing that can possibly be negotiated because of the facts of the situation that you keep ignoring. You just want punishment.

Enjoy your forumquesting.

[Argh]

Taken sought to finally receive some direction on what would happen in this unique situation. Now we all have it. I hear all of this talk of negotiation, but there is nothing that can possibly be negotiated because of the facts of the situation that you keep ignoring. You just want punishment.

I can only speak for myself when I say that the punishment in this case was fair and inline with previous FTE first offenses [dolj: maestro (warning) > maestro (suspension), IB: fay (warning) > draco (suspension)]. However, to somehow spin your infraction into some benevolent act to gain clarity on rules that nobody else misunderstood is a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. You took a calculated risk and deemed that it was more likely for you to receive a favorable GM ruling than it was to get FTE on a new engage. Please don't try to pass it off as anything more than this.

[-Catherin-]

I can only speak for myself when I say that the punishment in this case was fair and inline with previous FTE first offenses [dolj: maestro (warning) > maestro (suspension), IB: fay (warning) > draco (suspension)]. However, to somehow spin your infraction into some benevolent act to gain clarity on rules that nobody else misunderstood is a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. You took a calculated risk and deemed that it was more likely for you to receive a favorable GM ruling than it was to get FTE on a new engage. Please don't try to pass it off as anything more than this.

When did I try to pass this off as a benevolent act? Everyone involved in the situation is equally guilty, and that's the part you are trying to ignore. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, thank you!

We petitioned it immediately. We didn't try to hide anything. The entire situation was a clusterfuck and multiple guilds were doing things they should not have been doing, including an illegal FTE situation that never existed in the previous rules thrown into the mix. THAT is what you are trying to completely ignore, and instead focus on the one incident in this complicated situation that benefits you the most.

Nothing left to say. Have fun.

[Argh]

When did I try to pass this off as a benevolent act?

See:
Taken sought to finally receive some direction on what would happen in this unique situation.

No other guild did anything wrong. AG would have done something wrong only if they continued to kill the dragon they got a bad FTE on.

The only reason there are so many guilds on the hate list is because you pulled a dragon from its spawn onto 160 people that knew you shouldn't be pulling, and proceeded to kill it.

THAT is what you are trying to completely ignore, and instead focus on the one incident in this complicated situation that benefits you the most.

I'm not ignoring anything, and the only thing that will benefit me is if you consult the chart in the future.

[-Catherin-]

you can make anything sound like anything you want if you take it completely out of context like that.

But nice try...

[-Catherin-]

Also, to add a little lightheartedness back into this conversation. Let's all take a read of this to avoid future problems. Yes, Taken too :p Have a good night!

http://i.imgur.com/LESXdPj.jpg

Credit: Moodie!

[Ella`Ella]

http://youtu.be/0UyO2T4QVNo

What happened here, Taken?

[Erati]

http://youtu.be/0UyO2T4QVNo

What happened here, Taken?

looks like Noble RNG machine where Cecily beat us

then a Taken warrior dumped a mallet into it for some unknown reason ( tho your warrior should have dumped his mallet already :P ) and pulls aggro

then it falls tru the island like many Sky mobs on our lovely server do, summoning the Taken warrior under the island......then summons the rest of the aggro list off the island

After camping out, resing, and Noble taking years to reset.....Taken did not contest Noble after he returned to the spawn point since you guys had the first engage and we did pull aggro to put Noble in a position where he fell tru ( not intentional of course )

Grats TMO on Noble cycle?

[-Catherin-]

fast forward to 26

listen closely.

month suspension for flippie? I mean... the precedent has been set right? :p

[bktroost]

Also, to add a little lightheartedness back into this conversation. Let's all take a read of this to avoid future problems. Yes, Taken too :p Have a good night!

http://i.imgur.com/LESXdPj.jpg

Credit: Moodie!


I expect this from Tiggles, not an officer in Class R.

This is not RnF.

[Artaenc]

I'm glad we didn't go for this FFA but I would have been extremely upset if my guild lost the opportunity to get FTE because a guild knowing they didn't have FTE killed the dragon.

Since the staff don't want enforce it can we all agree to not have mage trackers for the outdoor dragons and only allow it for Trakanon like Argh suggested? Maybe ranger trackers only at TT zone line is allowed?

[-Catherin-]

I expect this from Tiggles, not an officer in Class R.

This is not RnF.

it was an attempt to bring some fun and lightheartedness back into the conversation, as stated, its picking as much fun at Taken as everyone else. (We are in line for that loot vending machine too.) Whether you want to admit it or not, there were members from every guild but Ateam apparently that forgot or ignored the rules that were supposed to be followed. We all goofed up.

I'm not trying to rub anyone's noses in anything.

Relax.

[-Catherin-]

I'm glad we didn't go for this FFA but I would have been extremely upset if my guild lost the opportunity to get FTE because a guild knowing they didn't have FTE killed the dragon.

Since the staff don't want enforce it can we all agree to not have mage trackers for the outdoor dragons and only allow it for Trakanon like Argh suggested? Maybe ranger trackers only at TT zone line is allowed?

I am more than happy to remove CoH trackers from the equation as I'm sure a lot of us knew this was going to happen eventually. The good thing is that it removed autofire from the equation and the bad thing is that things are still pretty much the status quo with everything else.

Some things to consider though that will most definitely come up in this situation if not agreed to beforehand.

Where will the starting line be? If this is not defined and agreed to, then with the people that play on P99 you know what is going to happen: you will have bards all starting at TT zone line, possibly entire guilds, and then slowly inching closer and closer to get that little advantage until we are all on the stairs or even closer. People will push that unknown boundary until a situation like this happens again. You are going to see 200 people sitting on the stairs ready to charge Sev instead of 200 people sitting at TT zoneline. So there is the need for more rules... upon rules... upon rules...

So what would all of the starting lines be? a particular spot in the zone? or stay out of the zone entirely? I personally think that if you don't want this to be abused that you are going to have to have the taggers in a different zone or required to be ported in.

Again, im all for removing CoH for everything but Trakanon, but we have to make sure the other new grey areas that appear because of this are covered as a result, because people will try to take advantage of them.

[arsenalpow]

it was an attempt to bring some fun and lightheartedness back into the conversation, as stated, its picking as much fun at Taken as everyone else. (We are in line for that loot vending machine too.) Whether you want to admit it or not, there were members from every guild but Ateam apparently that forgot or ignored the rules that were supposed to be followed. We all goofed up.

I'm not trying to rub anyone's noses in anything.

Relax.

No, we all did not goof up. As it's been stated numerous times being on an encounter log during an FFA kill does not imply any sort of illegality unless you're using your aggro to disrupt someone else's raid. This wasn't a benevolent act to help the server establish a raid precedence, it wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated gamble that you avoided punishment on despite numerous incidences of precedence.

[-Catherin-]

No, we all did not goof up. As it's been stated numerous times being on an encounter log during an FFA kill does not imply any sort of illegality unless you're using your aggro to disrupt someone else's raid. This wasn't a benevolent act to help the server establish a raid precedence, it wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated gamble that you avoided punishment on despite numerous incidences of precedence.

Okay Chest

[wycca]

Simplest solution to any sort of shennaigans is to remove as many variables from player control.

So why not -
Spawned mobs = C/R - no FFA
Earthquakes = all FFA
Bag limits = up for review, I'd say 2-4, altho I probably wouldnt mind none

I mean, classic EQ was all about mobilizing fast, not engaging mobs 0.1seconds after they spawn under heavily controlled scenarios with 2000 rules attached to every buff, movement, etc.

This system would create 3 tiers of advancement - the protected Class R, the mobilization focused FFA, and the instant-engage Class C.

[Erati]

Spawned mobs = C/R - no FFA
Earthquakes = all FFA

This system would create 3 tiers of advancement - the protected Class R, the mobilization focused FFA, and the instant-engage Class C.

+1

but I like bag limits for our server, I think they have been a big factor in why sim-repops are so much fun for every raiding guild

[bktroost]

+1

but I like bag limits for our server, I think they have been a big factor in why sim-repops are so much fun for every raiding guild

Agree wholeheartedly.

[-Catherin-]

This is why these situations always happen.

Hail my fellow Norrathians,

We all know that in the heat of battle things can sometimes not go exactly as planned, and if someone sees somebody else do something, they immediately try to match it or one up it in order to maintain a competitive edge.

That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations.

Doing this, figuratively takes a big old dump on the entire purpose for the Staff telling the players we don’t want them poopsocking the raid spawn locations. We also do not want KoS trackers to be able to get afk FTE’s, as we feel this is more in line with using autofire, than it is in the spirit of the rules set forth, rules that, I will remind you, were all agreed on by the players.

Consider this a warning to all guilds, the next time this happens, you can expect a guild suspension. It’s something we take very seriously, and something we do not want to see repeated.

The loots from today’s Severilous will be deleted because the first two guilds on the FTE list were on the raid spawn location, and because the guild that ended up killing and taking the loots did not have a proper FTE, as they did not allow the mob to reset before engaging it.

<3
The Staff

http://i.imgur.com/bdiMXN9.jpg

[Ella`Ella]

Your screenshot fails to show my members response to you and also fails to show a /loc. This is deceptive and inappropriate. Be professional, please.