[Serious] Lets talk Top raiding guilds and their behavior

[pogs4ever]

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

But I do believe there was a valiant attempt to make it right by both FR and AG which was declined by Kittens all around. What went on with that?

So we reached out to AG leadership and we got Octaveous 13 minutes later on his mobile out of game because the AG leadership in game was presumably busy bagging dragons. We had already dragged and rezzed when AG offered to send a cleric.

The issue was we had to clear a *second* round of WToV mobs to get a clear shot again at LTK.

Our next target after LTK was Yelinak (we had officers moving coth bots for a smooth transition).

AG admitted that the train was bad and clearly set us back but downplayed that they set us back like 45+ minutes on a quake with several still very good dragons up. AG killed Yelinak in that time frame so he was no longer available to us.

We wanted the concession of LTK + Yelinak. But AG/F gave a LTK and instead of Yelinak - Gozzrem and Telk. Naturally, we declined it.

[Toomuch]

Originally Posted by pogs4ever [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we reached out to AG leadership and we got Octaveous 13 minutes later on his mobile out of game because the AG leadership in game was presumably busy bagging dragons. We had already dragged and rezzed when AG offered to send a cleric.

The issue was we had to clear a *second* round of WToV mobs to get a clear shot again at LTK.

Our next target after LTK was Yelinak (we had officers moving coth bots for a smooth transition).

AG admitted that the train was bad and clearly set us back but downplayed that they set us back like 45+ minutes on a quake with several still very good dragons up. AG killed Yelinak in that time frame so he was no longer available to us.

We wanted the concession of LTK + Yelinak. But AG/F gave a LTK and instead of Yelinak - Gozzrem and Telk. Naturally, we declined it.

I'm not wanting to get all super-angsty here, but what you said here is very interesting, and feel it merits a level-headed response. Before I get to that though, yes it sucks you got trained, and it sucks even more that we (AG) took a while to get back to you about it. Poor form, on our part, hence going above and beyond in trying to make things right.

However, you're literally saying you wanted to set a new precedent/raid-rule on the fly, one based on missed opportunity.

All raiding guilds have been trained and wiped by other guilds before, but it has never been the policy or agreed-upon precedent to concede OTHER mobs, when an infraction occurs. Requiring this would be extremely murky waters.

For example, you're saying that if it quakes, and Riot trains AG on Dozekar, that Riot then needs to concede... what mob(s) exactly? AG can pick the target(s) that they'd like Riot to concede, in addition to Dozekar? Seeing as AG is capable of moving on to any other major target next, would Riot have to concede all of ToV? Doze + any other Velious target of AG's choosing?

That's just not how it has ever worked before in the raiding scene. The precedent has been set & agreed upon as conceding that mob that you got trained on/at.

AG actually went well above the precedent, *genuinely* trying to make things right, and conceded 3 different targets, not just the one required. This was turned down/scorned, as you stated.

By all means, a new precedent based on "opportunity lost" can indeed be discussed in the UN channel, but again, things like that can't be requested/demanded on the fly, Ultimately it's really murky waters though, and seems really lawyer-questy to me, which is something we're currently putting a lot of effort into trying to move away from, not toward.

[Duckwalk]

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

However, you're literally saying you wanted to set a new precedent/raid-rule on the fly, one based on missed opportunity.

All raiding guilds have been trained and wiped by other guilds before, but it has never been the policy or agreed-upon precedent to concede OTHER mobs, when an infraction occurs. Requiring this would be extremely murky waters.

For example, you're saying that if it quakes, and Riot trains AG on Dozekar, that Riot then needs to concede... what mob(s) exactly? AG can pick the target(s) that they'd like Riot to concede, in addition to Dozekar? Seeing as AG is capable of moving on to any other major target next, would Riot have to concede all of ToV? Doze + any other Velious target of AG's choosing?

That's just not how it has ever worked before in the raiding scene. The precedent has been set & agreed upon as conceding that mob that you got trained on/at.

AG actually went well above the precedent, *genuinely* trying to make things right, and conceded 3 different targets, not just the one required. This was turned down/scorned, as you stated.

By all means, a new precedent based on "opportunity lost" can indeed be discussed in the UN channel, but again, things like that can't be requested/demanded on the fly, Ultimately it's really murky waters though, and seems really lawyer-questy to me, which is something we're currently putting a lot of effort into trying to move away from, not toward.

This is an interesting point that should probably be discussed by guild leaders because it gets to the heart of the complaint.

Assume as in your example that Riot trains AG at Doze then concedes Doze. While AG recovers, Riot goes on to knock off a couple NToV dragons and then as AG prepares to killed Doze for the second time Riot trains them again "accidentally". By apparently established precedent Riot should now concede Doze twice in a row? By the time AG has recovered even more high priority targets are dead. Can Riot train AG at the same mob over and over again, assuming "accidental" and by the rules as you've outlined them only fairly be expected to concede that one mob abet multiple spawns of it?

Thinking about it in this manner more accurately describes the situation at hand. Kittens were in west and had been there for quite a bit clearing for LTK. This was known. Assuming the train was intentionally designed to set them back, is concession of that one mob and two far less valuable targets the appropriate penalty especially when AG had very little interest in those targets conceded? If Kittens knowns TSS is preparing to move from Velk to LTK, a target they too desire, can they "accidentally" train them at Velk and offer concession of Velk and Lord Bob as apporpriate recompense, AFTER Kittens has gone on to kill LTK?

[Grapeape]

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

This is an interesting point that should probably be discussed by guild leaders because it gets to the heart of the complaint.

Assume as in your example that Riot trains AG at Doze then concedes Doze. While AG recovers, Riot goes on to knock off a couple NToV dragons and then as AG prepares to killed Doze for the second time Riot trains them again "accidentally". By apparently established precedent Riot should now concede Doze twice in a row? By the time AG has recovered even more high priority targets are dead. Can Riot train AG at the same mob over and over again, assuming "accidental" and by the rules as you've outlined them only fairly be expected to concede that one mob abet multiple spawns of it?

Thinking about it in this manner more accurately describes the situation at hand. Kittens were in west and had been there for quite a bit clearing for LTK. This was known. Assuming the train was intentionally designed to set them back, is concession of that one mob and two far less valuable targets the appropriate penalty especially when AG had very little interest in those targets conceded? If Kittens knowns TSS is preparing to move from Velk to LTK, a target they too desire, can they "accidentally" train them at Velk and offer concession of Velk and Lord Bob as apporpriate recompense, AFTER Kittens has gone on to kill LTK?

I'm sorry. Could you please clarify this for me? Are you saying that kittens was trained intentionally, for the purpose of setting them back or slowing them down on a quake? Was there a reason to believe Fr/AG would have a motivation to do that?

[Croco]

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

I'm sorry. Could you please clarify this for me? Are you saying that kittens was trained intentionally, for the purpose of setting them back or slowing them down on a quake? Was there a reason to believe Fr/AG would have a motivation to do that?

Watch the video that was posted as defense. Incubo can clearly be heard asking if it was ok to train out west, Furoar says something about the 4 way being dirty and that he wouldn't and would just get a TL, Incubo then says "Nah". Everyone in zone had been seeing Kitten FTE messages on LTK for at least 15-25 minutes while we were clearing trash. That's probably why Furoar suggested not to train west and Incubo did it anyway. It might not have been intentional per se but it was definitely done recklessly and against the better judgment of AG/F raid leaders.