Raid Rules / FAQ

[Metallikus]

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

On subject: If there is no more 15 on spawn claims for raid targets, what will be done about the late window FTE snags? Generally speaking, when two guilds haven't been able to determine who had first claim and they both socked the spawn together it didn't turn out well. The 15 claim solved problems in the way of not creating any drama. I personally did not like it, but anyone can see what it did. Instead of taking it completely out, I think it needed to be refined as it often kept the guilds from breaking rules against each other (accidentally or not) and it kept GM involvement to a minimum, now that it's gone I don't see how those 2 things won't become more common.

So I guess my real question is, now that the raid target claiming is gone, what will be done about the increased heat between guilds on late window target spawns? Any chance to implement ways to determine FTE or will there be more rules later on to address this?

I would like to echo the concerns of my honorable colleague as they have not been directly addressed.

Example: raid force A (20 TMO 15 enraptured) and raid force B (35 BDA) and raid force C (5 Divinity) and raid force D (10 asgard) are all in Sky when Noble Djorn is about to spawn. Everyone on the server knows when it will spawn and will have their force on island 1.5 waiting for it to spawn at exactly oh let's say 8pm. Everyone engages and kills Noble in 10 seconds of spawning, divinity group loots and scoots. No GM on to determine FTE, so overseer is sitting there. Overseer is a spawned mob that is owned directly by the group that kills Noble as long as they engage within 20 minutes of it spawning.

This is a very real and super confusing weekly event based on these new raiding policies. How is this better or any more competitive than the first guild to have 15 members on the spot? At least the first 15 on spawn have to kill teh mob theirselves and not rely on 3 other guilds to dps for them.

[Sirken]

questions updated/answered.


also, as a whole, the staff supports and encourages guilds working things out on their own without staff having to intervene every single time.

[Writ3r]

It still seems to me the classic way would promote more competition. I can see the aspect of fairness in relation to variance due to timezone issues resulting in a kill always laying within a comfortable range for certain timezones (could be altered using patch respawns). However, with a set timer that more than 1 or 2 guilds knows about brings forth more true competition and hope outside of a patch/reset for the up and coming guilds to experience certain encounters.

I know nilbog has made jokes about zergs and such prior so it seems some people higher up appreciate the aspect of there being more guilds getting involved like the old days on here where multiple guilds actually competed for 1 target.

[Sirken]

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

It still seems to me the classic way would promote more competition. I can see the aspect of fairness in relation to variance due to timezone issues resulting in a kill always laying within a comfortable range for certain timezones (could be altered using patch respawns). However, with a set timer that more than 1 or 2 guilds knows about brings forth more true competition and hope outside of a patch/reset for the up and coming guilds to experience certain encounters.

I know nilbog has made jokes about zergs and such prior so it seems some people higher up appreciate the aspect of there being more guilds getting involved like the old days on here where multiple guilds actually competed for 1 target.

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.

[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)

[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.

[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]

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.]

[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.]