Raid Rule Madness

[Fael]

Juvento, this is going to be hard to accept, but these rules that you are flaunting, are the only thing that lets you "enjoy the content of the game." Otherwise, you would be back where you were a year ago.

What I don't understand is that if it is truly not about pixels for you, then why all the fuss? You had plenty of opportunity to show up at our kills to help us finish off the encounters and satisfy your simple desire to "punch a dragon."

Whether or not you agree with the rules, they are there to create a playing field at which we guilds can operate within. The rules are set up under the idea that players engage content as guilds or joint raids. Guilds are not free to make an attempt at tracking and killing a mob, but if you fail to secure FTE, then joining in on the other guild's attempt, regardless of intentions. Guess what: that make sense unless you are a complete idiot.

If guilds want to team up in velious, then they better not be tracking the mobs together. Or each track with one person. Its pretty simple.

Dolic

[Detoxx]

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

since TMO gets their kicks from denying loot to anyone but themselves, this is a win for them since the loot was destroyed. That is why they aren't petitioning. That is why umbrella isn't harassing the GMs on facebook or Skype to change the ruling.

This dude Unbrella stalked the GMs for 2 months after the FFA Naggy incident to get a new ruling. Sirken had already ruled that there was no raid interference and everyone went about their business till 2 months later Unbrella got Derubael to re-evaluate the situation. For those not in the know, Nagafen was engaged by Taken and was being killed - they had Naggy down to 20% and had 30 people engaged. They were in no danger of wiping, but a few BDA people got on the encounter log at the end. There was no collusion between Taken and BDA on the kill and BDA received no compensation whatsoever. Since both BDA and Taken had trackers present before the mob popped, however, TMO said there was a violation and said they were denied a dragon somehow. SO they petitioned to get Sirken's ruling overturned. TMO wanted a dragon from Taken and BDA. BDA offered to not go for the next FFA Naggy.

Somehow, thru litigation, BDA got suspended from their next rotated class R Naggy (ridiculous). TMO didn't get a dragon, Taken kept the loot. Mind you, there was no fraps submitted to prove anything. TMO says they somehow didn't have fraps of this incident (not likely, big fat liars) and the other guilds thought the incident was behind them since sirken had already ruled no violation so they didn't keep their fraps.

tldr, Unbrella = scum of the earth. BDA loses a rotated class R dragon for a ffa "violation".

Hahah the butthurt over this naggy is incredible. I was there and clearly u forget to mention that taken was, in fact, wiping. You BDA hatemongers said "oh man if they wipe we arent good enough to beat TMO so lets help them!" You took a risk and it backfired. QQ moar

[Detoxx]

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

except taken and BDA are clearly not working in collusion here.

And were supposed to take your word on that...right? Otherwise...prove it.

[Samoht]

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

And were supposed to take your word on that...right? Otherwise...prove it.

nope, take TMO's word for it:

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

Taken was all dying, however, and they had no part in consciously breaking the rule themselves. They didn't ask BDA to do what they did, supposedly.

and if you insist that TMO is not telling the truth, i'd say that you're probably right, and that Taken was never in danger of wiping to begin with.

[Troubled]

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

I don't have a problem with friendly competition. I'm just explaining what happened and why it happened.

Lol

[Juevento]

What you guys did following that Naggy was petty and in my opinion sad and pathetic. It was blatant and naked revenge seeking and were I a member of TMO I would be embarrassed by my leaderships decision to pursue the matter for over 2 months.

The reason there we are concerned with the recent rulings is because they are incongruous with the vision of the raid scene that was presented back in January. The class R designation was presented as a FFA subset of mobs for non-class C guilds with lockouts for the guilds involved with killing the mobs. There was no intention of having a staff regulated rotation or anything of that nature. In fact, several guilds were formed, namely Lord Bob, with the expressed intention of disrupting the player established rotation that was established following the formation of Class R.

For BDA to be forbidden from engaging our next player rotation assigned Class R Nagafen for a dubious "infraction" that occurred during a FFA spawn is a bizarre conclusion on several fronts. First, as I previously mentioned, the rotation within Class R is a player established entity. The server staff has no involvement in that rotation insofar as they are gracious enough to have established that Class of play for us to take part in. This ruling essentially changes that aspect in a very real way. Now evidently guilds are locked into their rotation positions and the number of lockouts listed on the p99 raid page are meaningless. A correct interpretation of being banned from a Class R Nagafen SHOULD mean that the next class R spawn that BDA is not locked out for by the lockouts on the p99 raid page would not be attempted by BDA.

Secondly, penalties for infractions ought to stay within the class of spawn where the infraction occurred (or if the broken rule is severe enough, extend to all classes). Were BDA to have been restricted from competing for the next Class FFA Nagafen, the confusion level would be lessened. I would still vehemently disagree that any infraction occurred, but could at least make heads or tails of the decision.

As it stands now, this ruling along with the well documented Sev ruling and TMOs strange banning from VP, it seems as if arbitrary adjudication of raid disputes is the way of things. And that is a very sad state of affairs.

[Detoxx]

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

and if you insist that TMO is not telling the truth, i'd say that you're probably right, and that Taken was never in danger of wiping to begin with.

Wow, you are pretty dense. It does not matter if they were wiping. Period.

[Samoht]

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

Wow, you are pretty dense. It does not matter if they were wiping. Period.

you're right because no rules were broken.

[Fael]

Its interesting that the raid FAQ and rules only lists 8 examples of raid interference. Unfortunately, "illegal aggro" is not there.

1. The intentional manipulation of the FD mechanic to engage/disengage a raid target multiple times will be viewed as raid disruption. Additional Rules FAQ.

2. It is against server policy to indefinitely kite, or otherwise keep occupied, a raid mob without intention of killing it. Additional Raid Rules FAQ.

3. Obvious stalling of a raid mob, especially in situations to prevent engagement by another guild, is against the rules. Additional Raid Rules FAQ.

4. Intentional training will be severely disciplined. Raid Rules.

5. Kill stealing will be severely disciplined. Raid Rules.

6. Guilds may not have any more than two representatives present at a raid spawn location. Raid Rules.

7. Guilds may not camp players out in the vicinity of raid targets. Raid Rules.

8. Invulnerability spells used on engagement may only be for mechanic strategies, and may not be used to stall engagement. Raid Rules.

[Samoht]

^ no where in those rules does it say that a second guild cannot punch a mob at the end for fun.