And I raaaaaan, I raaaan so far awaaaayyyy

[Tanthallas]

Well I will say I appreciate the tone of your responses.

First:

A: A mob is classified as engaged as long as it has aggro on at least one player.

First to 'engage' is defined as aggro on at least one player - not a group of players or raid. The parameter on this is that a sufficient raid force must be present. This has nothing to do with the tactics employed in pulling the mob, etc.

Second:

If an engaged mob has aggro on atleast one player, then an 'unengaged' mob has aggro on no players. When CT DT's someone as a result of his zone-wide DT, that person enters and simultaneously exists the criteria of engagement. However, when someone is on the aggro list and CT DT's that person, that person is engaged from the time he or she is on the aggro list to the time he or she is DTed.

Third:

Engaging in 'good faith' can mean many things. Attempting to aggro CT before another raid-force and pull him to your raid force may be tactically unsound, however based on the rules and the competition for FTE that they create it is a completely legitimate 'good faith' attempt to get on the aggro list before the other raid. IF there was not a raid force present, then this would obviously not be in 'good faith'...

You must see that, given Scorchin's being first on the aggro list, if all of the raid-force present simply rushed CT after he was DTed then this ruling would have gone differently. And that is the problem. FTE is not based upon proximity of the raid to the mob - if this is now the case, well, expect people to start forming their raids closer to mobs rather than at otherwise chosen locations and simply throw their force at the mob the second they see a puller from another guild tag them.

[Ele]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Alarti0001]

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

Well I will say I appreciate the tone of your responses.

First:

A: A mob is classified as engaged as long as it has aggro on at least one player.

First to 'engage' is defined as aggro on at least one player - not a group of players or raid. The parameter on this is that a sufficient raid force must be present. This has nothing to do with the tactics employed in pulling the mob, etc.

Second:

If an engaged mob has aggro on atleast one player, then an 'unengaged' mob has aggro on no players. When CT DT's someone as a result of his zone-wide DT, that person enters and simultaneously exists the criteria of engagement. However, when someone is on the aggro list and CT DT's that person, that person is engaged from the time he or she is on the aggro list to the time he or she is DTed.

Third:

Engaging in 'good faith' can mean many things. Attempting to aggro CT before another raid-force and pull him to your raid force may be tactically unsound, however based on the rules and the competition for FTE that they create it is a completely legitimate 'good faith' attempt to get on the aggro list before the other raid. IF there was not a raid force present, then this would obviously not be in 'good faith'...

You must see that, given Scorchin's being first on the aggro list, if all of the raid-force present simply rushed CT after he was DTed then this ruling would have gone differently. And that is the problem. FTE is not based upon proximity of the raid to the mob - if this is now the case, well, expect people to start forming their raids closer to mobs rather than at otherwise chosen locations and simply throw their force at the mob the second they see a puller from another guild tag them.

Jesus just too many for me to point out individualy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Refresh yourself

Your points contradict themselves in the same paragraph. You claim FTE is individualistic and not guild based and then based on your assumption you prove TMO deserves the mob. If CT was FE's on an FTE basis, when Scorchin died he lost all rights to the mob. Trying to pull CT thru an engaged "raid force' was tactically unsound. If your guild engaged FE likely would have gotten the kill(If TMO stayed engaged, because you would have definitely wiped). However, based on your assumptions, FE lost fte by dying and by not having another member with aggro.

Tactics always have something to do with loot awards. If VS is FTE'd but trained to the zone in that guild loses rights to the mob. Just another example of tactics mattering.

[Tanthallas]

One more time: Scorchin did not lose FTE rights because TMO engaged before he died.

If I pretend you are a child, it makes this so much easier.

[Alarti0001]

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

One more time: Scorchin did not lose FTE rights because TMO engaged before he died.

If I pretend you are a child, it makes this so much easier.

Or from another viewpoint Scorchin tried to pull CT and his train through TMO. Clearly raid interference.

[Alarti0001]

also, post fraps of scorchin actually pulling =))

<insert insult here>

[Tanthallas]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or from another viewpoint Scorchin tried to pull CT and his train through TMO. Clearly raid interference.

That is probably the first thing you have said that I can see as being a claim. But then again, if that were the ruling, it would set a pretty shaky foundation for pulling raid mobs in general.

[Ephi]

Now that we've all had some time to cool off (maybe)... a few notes for you all:

1. Despite this post existing in RnF, I think there have been some solid discussions and viewpoints from both sides of the ruling yesterday. I hope you all can continue to debate the merits of my decision yesterday. It's nothing but healthy for the server, the raiding guilds involved, and the GM staff.

2. As long as there is more than 1 guild raiding, there will be staff judgements made regarding certain scenarios which play out but perhaps enter a gray area in the server raiding rules. This will never go away. Staff intervention will almost always be required, regardless of the ruleset. To a certain extent, it's why we exist on the server. If this was not true, I'm sure Rogean would just patch some code in to transfer the loot to whoever appeared first on the aggro list for each encounter. Problem solved, right?

3. Some have suggested that this is completely unprecedented, and it's certainly not. Nor will this incident stand alone in the history of decisions going forward. As mentioned in point #2, GM staff is here to weigh in on encounters and make decisions to the best of their abilities. The rules help inform staff decisions on awarding loot. Period. I would challenge anyone to come up with a set of rules that can determine who is awarded a kill by themselves, without a human touch, for all possible scenarios. That said, we certainly seek to work toward that goal more and more.

To those of you who strongly disagree with my decision yesterday, please note that I'm sorry you got the short end of this one, and that I've been in similar situations myself (both on live, and here). It sucks to be robbed of loot, no matter how good or bad it might be. But from my view point, the correct decision was made based on a very many number of variables in this particular encounter.

While we'd love to be present for every encounter to make sure things don't happen, we obviously cannot. In situations where we are not present, the rules and guidelines set forth provide the best information toward our decisions. But when we can, we'll be present and interpret the rules as we see fit, collectively. I emphasize that because although there is some interpretation, it is certainly not an individual effort. We constantly look for feedback internally and continually improve not only our judgement of rules, but the rules themselves. No decision is made in a vacuum.

[Eccezan]

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

One more time: Scorchin did not lose FTE rights because TMO engaged before he died.

If I pretend you are a child, it makes this so much easier.

Lol...scorchin was DT'd, no one else from FE was on aggro list. Are you really this stupid? In EQ Mobs can not be aggrod on dead people thus regardless what the logs say FE is a shitty guild with no class and bad rule lawyers. For Sloan's next trick, he will engage a mob without zoning into the same zone as it. Wheres his loot?

Forceful Entry: A fail guild with a different name is still a fail guild.

[Alarti0001]

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

That is probably the first thing you have said that I can see as being a claim. But then again, if that were the ruling, it would set a pretty shaky foundation for pulling raid mobs in general.

The only claim I made is that your attempt to "pull" CT was tactically unsound and no sane person would have thought it would work. I am claiming that you were trying to FTE snipe without a credible attempt at CT. Your "pulling" thing is a made up story to try to lawyer your claim. It is frankly unbelievable and pathetic.

Its not very shaky CT is an individual encounter and acts differently that any other raid mob.