Trackers in Agro Range of Raid Targets. Severilous last night, needs community input

[Derubael]

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

How about the trackernerd that are not kos because they spent hundreds of nerd hours in mistmoore to get the faction? They can coth their nerd--taggers directly on top of Sev. Would that be nerdcceptable?

ftfy.

Do you guys have your own established rule regarding the CotH'ing of players by tracker-mages when a target spawns? If no, there are no rules against this from a CSR standpoint. Sirken had specifically asked me if this was legitimate earlier and I was unavailable to respond but as I stated above, there are no rules against this at this time, unless those rules are player-made.

[Drakakade]

Honestly, I do not what is going on here anymore, because "That being said, it is absolutely not ok for trackers to be parked on raid spawn locations" did not have any qualifying adjectives like "kos trackers". Sirken's statement was clear: no trackers in range, and hence Taken (rightly or wrongly) being upset when they perceived a tracker(s) were in range.

Clearly, folks were trying to inch up on the mob, and rather than the refs calling off-side we are now all going to have to go faction in MM? First, let's give some props to the prediction on 07/14/2014:

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

You do realize this is going to be a nightmare to police across the board, right? Because with all due respect, instead of solving anything your solution here is to just trade one cheat headache for another imo.

Back to a drastically increased amount of frapsquesting i guess, and a constant need for "where was this guy parked" petitions (especially on those outdoor dragons).

Folks we need to put our egos aside here, because with this new interpretation to Sirken's tracker proximity rule all we have done is move poopsocking from a guild affair to a 2 man/guild tracking, 16 hour coh-ducking affair, with the factioned CoH tracker(s) winning the truncated poopsock... Was that the intent?

Do we really want to just limit the scale of poopsocking? I hope not. Next, think about those poor GT folks or Dojo guys when they were perplexed at the web of raid rules - now you want them to faction up a bunch of dedicated CoH trackers?

I suggest going back to the problem and seeing if we can fix the original issue: the ball first got moved when we allowed CoH FTE's. That spawned CoH ducking and 16 poopducksocking by 2 trackers. Now, we (possibly) are inching the ball a bit closer by allowing factioned coh duckbots... Can we agree to fix CoH ducking, and then this issue will go away? Trakanon can stay the same or we can all just clear down to Trakanon - whatever you guys prefer.

Next, and this is for the staff, who I want to thank again for putting up with all this BS lawyering, and for putting in their free time to police the mess. I know it is frustrating to make a rule and then have everyone pick it apart. It must feel like folks are nitpicking. However, I believe that communication via text is very difficult, and what is really happening is the raiding guilds are trying to fully understand the scope of the rule.

I would humbly submit that before any new rule is set in stone that you give the various guilds 1 week to do their rules lawyering best to see if they can find any loopholes / clarification so we don't have to go down this thorny road each time.

Secondly, and this is a shameless plug, I would like to start thinking about Velious, and start to hear about any new rules the staff would like to work on prior to release. And i do have a horse in the race: Ziglark Whisperwing. At some point fairly soon, can we sit down and discuss what potentially will be a mess in Velious?

Again, thanks for your patience, and effort on our behalf.

[-Catherin-]

C/R Rotation, 100% FFA on simulated respawns.

puts this problem to bed entirely.

[Ella`Ella]

The members of Class-R were unhappy before the creation of the class system and new raid rules, thus the guilds that are now considered Class-C were forced to give up mobs to accommodate them. Now, Class-R is again unhappy with an agreement that they accepted by Rogean but are insisting that Class-C continue to sacrifice.

It's always been my understanding that if a party is truly unhappy with something, they will sacrifice something to become happier. I don't see Class-R willing to give anything up to achieve what they are looking for.

If you don't like playing in the 'toxic cesspool' that TMO and IB play in during FFA encounters, then I imagine the simple solution would be to not attend targets when they are FFA and overlap with Class-C. There is no force pushing any Class-R guild to intersect with the play-style of Class-C. FFA simply allows you the option to do so if you so choose. It also provides Class-R guilds that might like to test the Class-C waters a chance to do so without committing to becoming Class-C for whatever period of time you get put into that category.

[-Catherin-]

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

The members of Class-R were unhappy before the creation of the class system and new raid rules, thus the guilds that are now considered Class-C were forced to give up mobs to accommodate them. Now, Class-R is again unhappy with an agreement that they accepted by Rogean but are insisting that Class-C continue to sacrifice.

It's always been my understanding that if a party is truly unhappy with something, they will sacrifice something to become happier. I don't see Class-R willing to give anything up to achieve what they are looking for.

If you don't like playing in the 'toxic cesspool' that TMO and IB play in during FFA encounters, then I imagine the simple solution would be to not attend targets when they are FFA and overlap with Class-C. There is no force pushing any Class-R guild to intersect with the play-style of Class-C. FFA simply allows you the option to do so if you so choose. It also provides Class-R guilds that might like to test the Class-C waters a chance to do so without committing to becoming Class-C for whatever period of time you get put into that category.

How exactly can a Class R guild test the waters in Class C now? FFA targets do not resemble any form of competition now, and if we followed your "advice" to not do FFA at all, then that's just as bad. Where is the growth, and potential movement into a more "competitive" environment (Class C) that this raid agreement was supposed to foster?

C/R rotation eliminates all the drama and rule lawyering currently going on and "should" make everyone happy. including the GMs that need to deal with it.

100% FFA on respawns is where the real competition would happen. Guilds mobilizing, making snap decisions of targets and getting to them before someone else does and successfully killing it under a real press for time, and potentially lower numbers and un-perfect set ups due to that press for time. The only issue I see Class C really having with this is that Class R may actually wrestle some FFA targets away from them. Are you worried that we may actually be able to compete given the chance?

[Drakakade]

Unbrella, give it a rest.

C / R / FFA arose as a result of the rampant cheating that was occurring by TMO which resulted in Rogean's Thorbanhammer, and which resulted in Zeelot disbanding TMO after his "post".

Why TMO was allowed to reform when the Guild Leader at the time disbanded is beyond me, but what was left of TMO then reformed and absorbed FE of which you were a member.

(Biased) History lesson over.

IF R class guilds want VP mobs then they need to step up to C class. On that we agree. Can you kindly suggest a way of fixing the existing problem or would your guild like to support factioned CoH duckbots? IF so, just let us know your position.

[-Catherin-]

I would also clarify that they can have VP on the repops. when I said 100% FFA I meant everything outside of that.

[Anichek]

If anyone gave this a legitimate review, it would work. "Spells" under the engagement definition would also include CoTH, etc. Basically if you are in zone, you can do NOTHING except talk in /gu, send out a batphone, text your friends, or scream in your Vent/Mumble/TS to get people moving.

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

Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

Wouldn't have this problem, and don't see any single reason why this idea should be opposed by anyone.

[Drakakade]

Divinity would agree to the Anichek proposal with the exception of the "code stamp", because devs are working on Velious.

Instead, trackers can police who is zone, and we can all agree to not having any members in a zone other than trackers at the time of spawn. Everyone camp out forces outside of zone, and they can zone in at the time of spawn. Otherwise it is harder to police.

[Anichek]

A point was raised to me about advantage being gained under my proposal because of the varying degree of PC performance individuals may have. While I acknowledge that having a faster processor/more RAM/better video card/ SSD HD etc would certainly speed up aspects of the game, I do not think we need to account for that. People shouldn't be penalized for having a rig that is on-point - my proposal is a way to equalize the in-game execution of response and raid execution. Valid concern worth contemplation though!