And I raaaaaan, I raaaan so far awaaaayyyy

[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.

[Ele]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Tanthallas]

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

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.

Aggro on a mob is determined based on who is on the aggro list of that mob without ir resting given that it is killed.

People die when they fight shit. That does not erase them from the aggro list unless the mob resets.

As an officer of TMO, are you seriously trying to tell me that you have no fucking clue what determines who is on the aggro list of a mob and who is not? Does daddy Zeelot take care of all the important shit or something?

TMO: A mentally challenged guild with lots of loot is still a mentally challenged guild.

[Wrei]

Seems to me these "GM discretion calls" will only result in more threads from whoever is butt hurt on the outcome. Rules may promote the spirit of fairness but they are there to maintain consistency not "trying to do the right thing". From time to time, some will genuinely get shafted over something but that's when the rules can get modified to accommodate such eventualities. Not changed on the fly (however merited) by a GM. If you maintain the stance that "we'll always have to come in and make you crybabies play nice it will only lead to more drama.

GM's should deal with all other issues bugs/scams etc... anything BUT the raid loot scene (unless the boss bugs loot). People are all inherently greedy, if you open things to interpretations, they will only try to twist it to their advantage and spin it here by playing the victim card. Instead of trying to decide who is right and wrong in this instance it may be time to take a serious look at the rules themselves. Make it more black and white so little drama queens will have a harder time trying to spin it. There's plenty of options, perhaps a thread on the server board by a GM to ask the masses what the new rules should reflect will be more productive than two guilds pissing each other here.

As for this particular instance, it all boils down to how many people FE had in zone. "Raidforce" is really a tricky business, I mean it's obvious TMO feels FE was just trolling with the snipe as they didn't have enough to down CT (What is that number btw TMO? Is it like less than 40 = GTFO? Sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]). Cause if FE Did have legit numbers to down him then yeah from their perspective it would be a straight ks fest after they felt they got the tag. It could also be argued FE even with the bare minimum was not "Ready" to engage and just tagged early in the hopes TMO kills CT for them and they could sketch out the loot like true pro raiders (ok I'll stop :P).

See where I'm going with this? Everyone will have a different opinion and even if it were frapsed, everyone would have a different interpretation of it. Not claiming Ephi did the wrong decision, just saying the fact he had to make a "gut call" is what makes the whole rule situation silly and open to debate.

Either hard code FTE with a clear shout, if opposing guilds do more dmg than FTE guild then ban their accounts for 6months. Force rotations between raid ready guild (I'm sure the mass of casuals will all jizz over this idea). KS group determines Loot rights. Allow everything to go, training, ks'ing... and start a Darwinian process of retards until they realize cooperation is better than ass munching. W/e it is, decide on something other than "We'll decide on a case by case basis if the rules apply here".

PS: Still would like to know how many FE had in zone ready when CT got aggroed, and would still like to hear what a "raid force" is under the TMO standards.