DA KSes offically now?

[Ingrum]

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

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

Damn, I lol'd!

[Noleafclover]

I'm really sick of leapfrogging threads since the FTE rule. I've got 3 questions I'd like you to consider. As it's fair to consider this an attack on transcendence's view here that they were leapfrogged, first I'm going to give you some background on my feelings on the decision, and on DA.

I'll also briefly state that yes - I feel I've met more than the average amount of assholes from trans - and yes, I don't like Supreme from his posts here.

But my question is more about the "leapfrogging" issue that's cropped up since FTE rules. If this is TLDR, skip to 3) where I state what I believe to be indisputable facts, and ask my 3 questions.

Two small points first.

1) Decision

I believe Rogean made the right call here. It's first to engage, straight up, by the rules. And straight up, Inny disengaged after DTing according to the logs.

I think subjectively Inny should have belonged to DA, but it's better to stick to the rules to (theoretically) minimize crying. It should even out in the long run, and people can plan around it with DTing mobs.

2) DA

I'm not a fan of DA's leadership's past and present decisions. Duping items and crashing zones was a dick move - and OK, they took their lumps for that - but DA is the leading cause of poopsocking, as agreed by everyone else; and has camped mobs AT spawn points under the current iteration of the rules. Which is just ridiculous.

3) Leapfrogging: Some facts

-The new rules encourage leapfrogging by being first to engage mobs, with no mention of trash or position giving a raid credit.

-There has been what could be - and has been, on the forums - called leapfrogging since the rule change on EVERY cazic spawn, and plenty in plane of sky with the 8 hour spawn timer.

-Every single top guild has been accused of it.

-Many players enjoy it, and feel that it's competitive. Many guilds admit to it. There are calls for FFA, or for moving more in that direction.

So, with those facts in mind

Is every player who enjoys the competition of leapfrogging a douche?

If so, then leapfrogging must be inherently evil. If it's inherently evil, what's stopping you from making agreements with several or every other guild on the server to not leapfrog each other? Shouldn't they automatically agree, assuming they were not also inherently evil?

Wouldn't this solve your problem?

[Supreme Retard]

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

If so, then leapfrogging must be inherently evil.

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

[h0tr0d (shaere)]

Actually Miley...

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.

So, when a mob no longer has aggro on anyone following a quick death touch...it is not engaged. That is where he went with it.

I would also state this rule in of itself, the FTE is contradictory. First to be aggroed on differs from first to aggro, or first to engage. The first can be mob dependent, the latter is player dependent. A mob aggroing you is not the same as you aggroing the mob.
You are Afk? Mob aggros you, starts killing you. Player_01 comes along, engages him and you come back claiming kill steal, citing FTE rule. However, he was first to engage, and aggro the mob. You were the first to BE aggroed, but you were not engaging the mob.

So the rule should be changed perhaps. A mob having aggro on someone does not necessarily mean they are actively engaging said mob.

Also, perhaps enforce courtesy and respect more, or more harshly. Don't allow people to justify or rationalize poor behavior.

And the real failure, the point that is missed here, is that someone might care so little about their reputation. If you KNOW it will create drama, problems, and this whole mess, why do it? Because you think you found a way to get away with acting poorly?

Character is made by many acts, it can be lost by a single one.

[Glitterati]

Originally Posted by h0tr0d (shaere) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually Miley...

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.

So, when a mob no longer has aggro on anyone following a quick death touch...it is not engaged. That is where he went with it.

I would also state this rule in of itself, the FTE is contradictory. First to be aggroed on differs from first to aggro, or first to engage. The first can be mob dependent, the latter is player dependent. A mob aggroing you is not the same as you aggroing the mob.
You are Afk? Mob aggros you, starts killing you. Player_01 comes along, engages him and you come back claiming kill steal, citing FTE rule. However, he was first to engage, and aggro the mob. You were the first to BE aggroed, but you were not engaging the mob.

So the rule should be changed perhaps. A mob having aggro on someone does not necessarily mean they are actively engaging said mob.

Also, perhaps enforce courtesy and respect more, or more harshly. Don't allow people to justify or rationalize poor behavior.

And the real failure, the point that is missed here, is that someone might care so little about their reputation. If you KNOW it will create drama, problems, and this whole mess, why do it? Because you think you found a way to get away with acting poorly?

Character is made by many acts, it can be lost by a single one.

You sir, are brilliant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Supreme Retard]

Originally Posted by h0tr0d (shaere) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Character is made by many acts, it can be lost by a single one.

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

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by h0tr0d (shaere) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually Miley...

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.

So, when a mob no longer has aggro on anyone following a quick death touch...it is not engaged. That is where he went with it.

So the rule should be changed perhaps. A mob having aggro on someone does not necessarily mean they are actively engaging said mob.

Yeah, precisely. I think that's what Glitter meant to say. And all I was trying to point out, too. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Erasong]

sounds like the poopsock is makin a comeback.

[Supreme Retard]

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

sounds like the poopsock is makin a comeback.

Perhaps you can quit again! You won't be missed!

[h0tr0d (shaere)]

I think I am done with this thread, beating a dead horse. I would also point out I do not see DA members lighting this or any other thread up, or lighting up ooc, or shout in game as a result of this incident. So despite what happened and occurred, players in game didn't act up about it after the smoke cleared, or really get bad here. So kudos there.

And they acted completely respectful and courteous the day before. We were breaking fear, they waited outside. We fight at the zone in, them zoning in would probably result in bad blood, chaos. They waited. We evacced to reinsert, then they zoned in. We waited. When they had things settled, we zoned in. It all went rather perfectly, courtesy and respect shown. They even offered up the first piece of rotting loot in ooc, perhaps as an olive branch. I would hope that the mob isn't what drove this, people clamoring for loot forcing leadership to make decisions they knew perhaps might not have the best result. But that is their business, my speculation.

Seems like we are arguing with a few trolls is all. But there are a few changes that could be for the better as a result of things gleaned from this thread.

I hope.