interesting stance :)

Awarkle

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
1,131
A new fair play rule in Atlantis
More and more players camp specific Atlantis areas in order to kill over again the same creature from a Master Level step. It becomes a problem when it prevents other players or battle groups from killing the creature and completing the step.
Blocking an encounter is now considered as harmful for the community and will be punished as written in our code of conduct.
It is now requested that players who want to kill the same monster from a Master Level step repeatedly, let the other players or groups have their turn to complete the encounter or merge with them in order to find an amicable solution. The players who were there first will of course be allowed to continue their activities once everybody has completed the encounter.
The distribution of the loot is up to the player's discretion as always.


seems that the ml1.1 farmers can be told to shift it if a proper official raid is coming through. :)


btw taken from fridays new from goa.
 

Thorwyn

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
4,752
It´s called "common sense".
Odd that we need rules to enforce common sense these days.
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Awarkle said:
seems that the ml1.1 farmers can be told to shift it if a proper official raid is coming through. :)
Necro+BB and 5 lvl40+ friends (without the credit) can do the encounter 5 times and once all of them have the credit they can keep on farming as long as they start the encounter first and the ones who were there first can do nothing about it. In the other hand is there a rule that players are supposed to know what the ML mobs are? Can I just keep on farming ML1.1 until GM ask me to stop? I dont have to trust on other players or do I?

Common sense >>>> official and written rule. Bet lots of players who are normally nice and friendly will abuse this rule and in the end it will do more harm than good. Nice idea and shows that GOA cares about their customers though :p
 

Shike

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,936
shrug, rule of 1st attacker on mob still applys though I guess. GOA just shot themselves in the foot with this socalled "rule" imo.

Who decide how long you can camp a MLencounter before its time to let a group of people do a needed step? IE, define camping. Say a guy need a drop from a mob, and he is waiting for it to pop.. group of 8 comes by and claim they gonna do MLs.. what to do then, if they say that they are doing MLs, when it might be so that a grpmember in that said group is after exactly same item as the original camper? Will just be a mess tbh. And btw, imho, both MLraiders aswell as a camper has equal rights to a mob if the camper is in need of a specific item for a template for example. To prioritise MLraiders, when there is absolutely no fucking way for an eventual camper to KNOW if they are indeed in need of the specific step or if they are after same thing as he is.. how is he supposed to know when to back off, in order to not break an idiotic rule, or not???

This bigbrotherstuff is pure bs and nothing but bs.
 

Darzil

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
2,651
It's not just group ML steps that get camped, but also BG ones.

If someone is repeatedly doing one step, taking 20 minutes a time, with a 5 minute repop, is holding up a raid of 6fg+, who'd take 2 minutes, is that fair ? Especially as it's just one kill, and then the raid will be past.

Remember that the ML mobs generally pop a lot faster than the average artifact mob.

Darzil
 

Formash

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
482
Thorwyn[B&Q] said:
It´s called "common sense".
Odd that we need rules to enforce common sense these days.

Aye, same with the statues on ML1 as well - great for powerlevelling in a group / 2 groups - and we'd always let others do the enc's before we'd continue.
 

IainC

English WAR Community Manager
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
1,862
Shike said:
shrug, rule of 1st attacker on mob still applys though I guess. GOA just shot themselves in the foot with this socalled "rule" imo.

Who decide how long you can camp a MLencounter before its time to let a group of people do a needed step? IE, define camping. Say a guy need a drop from a mob, and he is waiting for it to pop.. group of 8 comes by and claim they gonna do MLs.. what to do then, if they say that they are doing MLs, when it might be so that a grpmember in that said group is after exactly same item as the original camper? Will just be a mess tbh. And btw, imho, both MLraiders aswell as a camper has equal rights to a mob if the camper is in need of a specific item for a template for example. To prioritise MLraiders, when there is absolutely no fucking way for an eventual camper to KNOW if they are indeed in need of the specific step or if they are after same thing as he is.. how is he supposed to know when to back off, in order to not break an idiotic rule, or not???

This bigbrotherstuff is pure bs and nothing but bs.

It'll only be bigbrother stuff if it's enforced that way. All it does is state clearly that if you are just farming an encounter for the drops and a raid comes along, you are expected to step aside and let them do it. This follows some rather nasty incidents where people who were farming refused to let a raid go through and as a result a battlegroup worth of people missed out over the actions of a couple of greedy individuals. I think most people would agree that that's not fair. Under the old rules however they were doing nothing wrong and if we were called to sort it out ingame we could do nothing except ask nicely on behalf of the raid. All the other rules regarding 'ownership' of an encounter still apply, if you've pulled it it's yours. If people interfere, they are breaking the CoC.

Once the raid has had their shot at the encounter, the farmer is free to carry on farming. In your example above where a group come along and claim they are doing ML steps, then they get their one shot at the encounter. If they are actually just trying for the same drop as the farmer then unless they get it on their single attempt, they'll be disappointed and the farming group can go back to trying to farm again. It's not really all that abusable to be honest.
 

old.Whoodoo

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,646
As also stated, whats wrong with the farmers inviting others or joining the ML groups BG, no one looses either way.

End the greed on artis and MLs I say. Learn to share your toys with your realm mates.
 

mightybunny

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
327
it's because on excal midgard we have had on several raids we come to the bg step and that mob is down 70 mid's waiting an hour for repop
 

TheBinarySurfer

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
2,041
old.Whoodoo said:
As also stated, whats wrong with the farmers inviting others or joining the ML groups BG, no one looses either way.

End the greed on artis and MLs I say. Learn to share your toys with your realm mates.
well said
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Requiel said:
Once the raid has had their shot at the encounter, the farmer is free to carry on farming. In your example above where a group come along and claim they are doing ML steps, then they get their one shot at the encounter. If they are actually just trying for the same drop as the farmer then unless they get it on their single attempt, they'll be disappointed and the farming group can go back to trying to farm again. It's not really all that abusable to be honest.
It doesn't state how many attempts farmers have to give so single attempt can turn into 5, 10 or 100 attempts like I said in my previous post - just bring enough friends in need of the credit and do it separetaly for everyone (or in ML1.1 for example you can just kill the mob who drops the loot you are after and "fail" to finish the encounter time after time :p). We are talking about hours and hours of waiting here and I for one wont bother to farm ML1.1 if I dont have a friend without the credit with me - if someone ask to do it for credit I'll give one try (which I dont have to do...) and start farming again (killing just one mob and my friend still needs the credit so I'm not "a player who want to kill the same monster from a Master Level step repeatedly", I'm just a poor player failing in encounter :p).
mightybunny said:
it's because on excal midgard we have had on several raids we come to the bg step and that mob is down 70 mid's waiting an hour for repop
This rule wont help that situation at all - you can keep farming stuff until someone in need of credit comes so if someone has started bashing the mob you have to wait it to die and to repop.
 

Culanan

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
278
Saggy said:
It doesn't state how many attempts farmers have to give so single attempt can turn into 5, 10 or 100 attempts like I said in my previous post - just bring enough friends in need of the credit and do it separetaly for everyone (or in ML1.1 for example you can just kill the mob who drops the loot you are after and "fail" to finish the encounter time after time :p). We are talking about hours and hours of waiting here and I for one wont bother to farm ML1.1 if I dont have a friend without the credit with me - if someone ask to do it for credit I'll give one try (which I dont have to do...) and start farming again (killing just one mob and my friend still needs the credit so I'm not "a player who want to kill the same monster from a Master Level step repeatedly", I'm just a poor player failing in encounter :p).

This rule wont help that situation at all - you can keep farming stuff until someone in need of credit comes so if someone has started bashing the mob you have to wait it to die and to repop.

Won't be hard to tell whose attempting to dodge the rules, delibrately failing will be pretty obvious.

Why create such an awkward situation for a BG when you can let them do it and return to farming afterwards? Oh right, it's unthinkable to retain some social grace and just be difficult because that's better than losing 10 minutes farming time, go you!
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Culanan said:
Won't be hard to tell whose attempting to dodge the rules, delibrately failing will be pretty obvious.
Doesn't matter how obvious it looks, it will be within the rules. If I farm ML1.1 the way I said in my example and you try to sneak in without needing the credit GOA has to punish you - without this new rule the encounter belonged to who pulled the mob first.
Culanen said:
Why create such an awkward situation for a BG when you can let them do it and return to farming afterwards? Oh right, it's unthinkable to retain some social grace and just be difficult because that's better than losing 10 minutes farming time, go you!
If this "go you" was directed to me you have totally misunderstood what I said and I highly recommend you to reread my posts - all I did was giving examples of how abusable this new rule is. Your reply just proves I'm right :m00:

Like I said in my first post I bet this rule will do more harm than good and it should be adjusted. Remove "The players who were there first will of course be allowed to continue their activities once everybody has completed the encounter" and it would be better.
 

IainC

English WAR Community Manager
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
1,862
Saggy said:
Doesn't matter how obvious it looks, it will be within the rules. If I farm ML1.1 the way I said in my example and you try to sneak in without needing the credit GOA has to punish you - without this new rule the encounter belonged to who pulled the mob first.

If this "go you" was directed to me you have totally misunderstood what I said and I highly recommend you to reread my posts - all I did was giving examples of how abusable this new rule is. Your reply just proves I'm right :m00:

Like I said in my first post I bet this rule will do more harm than good and it should be adjusted. Remove "The players who were there first will of course be allowed to continue their activities once everybody has completed the encounter" and it would be better.
And what you fail to realise is that these rules aren't upheld by machines following a script. They are upheld by GMs who are capable of applying common sense to a situation.
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Requiel said:
And what you fail to realise is that these rules aren't upheld by machines following a script. They are upheld by GMs who are capable of applying common sense to a situation.
Wasn't the whole point in making this rule that GMs aren't capable of applying common sense to situations because they have to play within the rules?
Requiel said:
This follows some rather nasty incidents where people who were farming refused to let a raid go through and as a result a battlegroup worth of people missed out over the actions of a couple of greedy individuals. I think most people would agree that that's not fair. Under the old rules however they were doing nothing wrong and if we were called to sort it out ingame we could do nothing except ask nicely on behalf of the raid.
Care to explain what I'm doing wrong in my examples and why you could suddenly do something else than "asking nice on behalf of the raid/person"? Unless I say something about farming ML1.1 and you spot it on logs there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me now is there?
 

Culanan

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
278
Saggy said:
Doesn't matter how obvious it looks, it will be within the rules. If I farm ML1.1 the way I said in my example and you try to sneak in without needing the credit GOA has to punish you - without this new rule the encounter belonged to who pulled the mob first.

If this "go you" was directed to me you have totally misunderstood what I said and I highly recommend you to reread my posts - all I did was giving examples of how abusable this new rule is. Your reply just proves I'm right :m00:

Like I said in my first post I bet this rule will do more harm than good and it should be adjusted. Remove "The players who were there first will of course be allowed to continue their activities once everybody has completed the encounter" and it would be better.

I read your post, merely pointing out that choosing to break the rules in the case of ml raids isn't really going to work.

It's already been implied that once the encounter is done the raid moves on and the people who were farming can go back to it.

Ofc the bone of contention over who really owns the mob/'s after is once again covered by the normal rules of pulling, all this rule does is enforce the need of a ml raid to do the encounter, can't really enforce something by asking nicely then not being prepared to do something about it when the other party says get stuffed we were here first.

My reply btw doesn't prove you right, since I would never create an obstacle to a ml raid whilst farming.

Trying to strictly interpret the letter as opposed to the spirit of a rule is what causes the most trouble, believing the letter to be above the spirit.

It's pretty clear what is expected of the farmers, finish your pull if you started, either join the bg or wait.
The only abuse I can see happening is another farming grp trying to muscle in by claiming that's what they are there for, however, once noted and appealed I can't see it happening much past the first few people who try to get away with it.
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Culanan said:
I read your post, merely pointing out that choosing to break the rules in the case of ml raids isn't really going to work.
I wasn't breaking any rules in my examples or did I?
Culanan said:
It's already been implied that once the encounter is done the raid moves on and the people who were farming can go back to it.
Nothing stops the raid to stay there to farm and they can do it separately to everyone = those who were there can't touch the mob unless they are grouped with someone in need of credit.
Culanan said:
Ofc the bone of contention over who really owns the mob/'s after is once again covered by the normal rules of pulling, all this rule does is enforce the need of a ml raid to do the encounter, can't really enforce something by asking nicely then not being prepared to do something about it when the other party says get stuffed we were here first.
As long as I'm grouped with someone in need of credit farmers who dont need the credit aren't allowed to touch the mob. I know what this rule is about, I just see it easily abusable like I've explained already.
Culanan said:
My reply btw doesn't prove you right, since I would never create an obstacle to a ml raid whilst farming.
Was my point that you would create an obstacle to a ML raid whilst farming? No, it wasn't. Was my point that I would create an obstacle to a ML raid whilst farming? No, it wasn't. Was my point that this rule is abusable and assholes can make a obstacle for ML raid if they want to? Yes, it was. Did you see the that too? Yes, if I'm not mistaken, you did.
Culanan said:
Trying to strictly interpret the letter as opposed to the spirit of a rule is what causes the most trouble, believing the letter to be above the spirit.
If it's not against the rules you are allowed to do it. That's why GOA made this rule for and please, if you put spirit over the letter the rule turns into guideline.
Culanan said:
It's pretty clear what is expected of the farmers, finish your pull if you started, either join the bg or wait.
The only abuse I can see happening is another farming grp trying to muscle in by claiming that's what they are there for, however, once noted and appealed I can't see it happening much past the first few people who try to get away with it.
The thing is that you can claim a ML-step as long as you are grouped with someone in need of credit and groups that dont need credit are not allowed to touch the mob - in the other words its possible to claim a camp in some situations thanks to this new rule.

People abused the lack of this rule so what makes you think there wont be people who are willing to abuse this rule? I'm just realistic here - this rule wont make assholes to disappear :m00:

"Killing people with shotguns is against the law" -> people keep on killing each others with rifles, knives and stuff and soon the law would be changed to "Killing people is against the law". The idea behind this new rule is great but the wording of it sucks and its full of holes for abuse :cool:
 

Jaapi

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
468
Saggy said:
The idea behind this new rule is great but the wording of it sucks and its full of holes for abuse :cool:
Which is why there are GM's to prevent that from happening.
Still amazed you fail to see that. :twak:
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Jaapi said:
Which is why there are GM's to prevent that from happening.
Still amazed you fail to see that. :twak:
Erm...
Requiel said:
Under the old rules however they were doing nothing wrong and if we were called to sort it out ingame we could do nothing except ask nicely on behalf of the raid.
I'm not doing anything wrong in my examples (or am I?) = all the GMs can do is asking nicely on behalf of the raid.

Situation without this rule:
The mob belongs to one who pulls it. If there is someone farming Moirai all the raid can do is trying to pull the mob before the farmer - if they add on farmer's mob GOA has to punish them for breaking the rules. The farmer is abusing the "mob belongs to one who pulls it" rule and prevents raid to get credit.

Situation with this rule:
1) The ones in need of ML-step credit get the priority. If there is someone farming Moirai the farmer have to step back untill everyone in the raid get the credit. If its a BG-step one try can be enough but if the raid wants to do the step separately for everyone they can and there is nothing the farmer can do about it - if farmer add on their mob GOA has to punish them for breaking the rules. The raid is abusing this new rule and prevents farmer to farm.

2) Necro+BB #1 with ML1.1 credit are farming ML1.1. Necro+BB #2 without the credit comes and want to farm it too. Necro #1 has to step back until Necro #2 gets the credit which can take one or thousands of retries. Unless Necro #2 says something about farming ML1.1 GOA can't be 100% sure (according to their own words they wont act unless they are 100% sure and to say you are 100% sure you have to be able to prove it) is he "farming" it or just failing to finish it. Necro #2 is abusing this new rule and prevents Necro #1 to farm...

3) ... but then there comes a group in need of ML1.1 credit. They are in same line with Necro #2 and the encounter belongs to one who pulls the mob first. Necro #1 isn't allowed to pull untill everyone get credit. Necro #2 just made new standards for camping thanks to this new rule :cool:
 

Culanan

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
278
Saggy said:
Erm...

I'm not doing anything wrong in my examples (or am I?) = all the GMs can do is asking nicely on behalf of the raid.

Situation without this rule:
The mob belongs to one who pulls it. If there is someone farming Moirai all the raid can do is trying to pull the mob before the farmer - if they add on farmer's mob GOA has to punish them for breaking the rules. The farmer is abusing the "mob belongs to one who pulls it" rule and prevents raid to get credit.

Situation with this rule:
1) The ones in need of ML-step credit get the priority. If there is someone farming Moirai the farmer have to step back untill everyone in the raid get the credit. If its a BG-step one try can be enough but if the raid wants to do the step separately for everyone they can and there is nothing the farmer can do about it - if farmer add on their mob GOA has to punish them for breaking the rules. The raid is abusing this new rule and prevents farmer to farm.

2) Necro+BB #1 with ML1.1 credit are farming ML1.1. Necro+BB #2 without the credit comes and want to farm it too. Necro #1 has to step back until Necro #2 gets the credit which can take one or thousands of retries. Unless Necro #2 says something about farming ML1.1 GOA can't be 100% sure (according to their own words they wont act unless they are 100% sure and to say you are 100% sure you have to be able to prove it) is he "farming" it or just failing to finish it. Necro #2 is abusing this new rule and prevents Necro #1 to farm...

3) ... but then there comes a group in need of ML1.1 credit. They are in same line with Necro #2 and the encounter belongs to one who pulls the mob first. Necro #1 isn't allowed to pull untill everyone get credit. Necro #2 just made new standards for camping thanks to this new rule :cool:

1) will only happen if the raid only wants to farm the mob, you'll never see 32 people turn up to do that, hence it'll on be conceivable on the easier grp steps. There is no reason for a raid to remove 10 people from a /bg to mask the farming because it's obvious. screenshots and conversation logs (yes people usually enjoy gloating privately) along with a GM appraisal of the situation would resolve it.

2) Again, why would the guy take a thousand retries, if he wants to farm under false pretences he HAS to succeed and kill the mobs. Once it got to the point farmer #1 is pissed off he contacts a GM or E&E they speak to the guy he says, I need ml1.1 on my bot, they check he has credit, they ask him to move. He'll move or be punished.

3) bit like a repeat really, everyone gets credit when the encounter is done, thus no feasible way to prolong the encounter unless it's bugged which isn't exactly a common occurrance.

You seem to miss out on the fact that any mature person, which includes GM's, will know whether it's stated in chat or not what a persons intentions and motives are, a short period of time and what are people going to do? contact each other on an instant messenger and say "hey lets log in and if someone else is farming we say we need credit! we can farm for hours! btw don't mention anything once we are ingame, they can only prove anything through the chat!"

Someone might try it but the rule isn't a way to be nice, it's a way to say if you do this and don't step aside you will be punished, the same pretty much goes for 1fg (no real raid is going to attempt to farm ml1.1) attempting to farm an encounter.

It would just be easier to turn up and take turns to do the encounter, since ml1.1 actually only starts when you talk to the npc, I can see a GM saying "well if you both are farming then arrange a way to take turns" if one party refuses it's likely to misbehave then be punished for griefing.
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Culanan said:
You seem to miss out on the fact that any mature person, which includes GM's, will know whether it's stated in chat or not what a persons intentions and motives are, a short period of time and what are people going to do? contact each other on an instant messenger and say "hey lets log in and if someone else is farming we say we need credit! we can farm for hours! btw don't mention anything once we are ingame, they can only prove anything through the chat!"
You seem to miss out the fact that GOA, according to their own words, wont act unless they are 100% sure and to claim they were 100% they have to be able to prove it. If GM asks what I'm doing at ML1.1 I can say I'm after the credit and its their job to prove me wrong. GOA knew those greedy persons were preventing raid to get credit by purpose yet they didn't do a thing - they have to prove that someone is breaking the rules in order to punish them.
Culanan said:
1) will only happen if the raid only wants to farm the mob, you'll never see 32 people turn up to do that, hence it'll on be conceivable on the easier grp steps. There is no reason for a raid to remove 10 people from a /bg to mask the farming because it's obvious. screenshots and conversation logs (yes people usually enjoy gloating privately) along with a GM appraisal of the situation would resolve it.
<Sigh> Read the underlined part "will only happen" = it can happen and that is, my dear friend, my point. There is no rule stopping people to do BG-step separately for everyone so it can be done. Is my English really that bad or why dont you get my point?
Culanan said:
2) Again, why would the guy take a thousand retries, if he wants to farm under false pretences he HAS to succeed and kill the mobs. Once it got to the point farmer #1 is pissed off he contacts a GM or E&E they speak to the guy he says, I need ml1.1 on my bot, they check he has credit, they ask him to move. He'll move or be punished.
I have failed in ML1.1 numerous times (the encounter has a timer) so if #1 contacts GM the GM will see that #2 still doesn't have the credit so #1 has to stay back untill he gets it.
Culanan said:
It would just be easier to turn up and take turns to do the encounter, since ml1.1 actually only starts when you talk to the npc, I can see a GM saying "well if you both are farming then arrange a way to take turns" if one party refuses it's likely to misbehave then be punished for griefing.
The point is not what is the easiest/best way to sort it out, the point is what this new rule allows players to do. If there is farmers #1 and #2 GM would say to #1 to stay back untill #2 get the credit.

Still waiting someone to quote the rules I'm breaking in my examples - until then this will remain as my last post in this thread, wont be feeding the trolls who can't be arsed to read what's been said.
 

Thorwyn

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
4,752
2) Again, why would the guy take a thousand retries, if he wants to farm under false pretences he HAS to succeed and kill the mobs. Once it got to the point farmer #1 is pissed off he contacts a GM or E&E they speak to the guy he says, I need ml1.1 on my bot, they check he has credit, they ask him to move. He'll move or be punished.

The point that Saggy is trying to explain is, that with the new rules in effect, it´s - for the first time - possible to CLAIM a mob/encounter because of certain circumstances other than "I was here first". It´s a "I need this, so you have to leave if you don´t need this too" situation. Pushed to the limits, one could now park an entire army of lvl 40 alts at the 1.1 bridge, kill the encounter, then invite a new alt (who needs the step of course) and keep killing. The can require you to have *someone* in your group who needs the encounter, but they can´t tell you how to do it or how many people to invite.

As I said, this rule is trying to enforce common sense and politeness. And as it is with rules, it´s possible to bend them to your advantage if that´s your wish, simply by having someone in the group who needs the ml step, acting as a ticket. That´s pretty unique for DAOC.
 

Culanan

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
278
Saggy said:
You seem to miss out the fact that GOA, according to their own words, wont act unless they are 100% sure and to claim they were 100% they have to be able to prove it. If GM asks what I'm doing at ML1.1 I can say I'm after the credit and its their job to prove me wrong. GOA knew those greedy persons were preventing raid to get credit by purpose yet they didn't do a thing - they have to prove that someone is breaking the rules in order to punish them.

<Sigh> Read the underlined part "will only happen" = it can happen and that is, my dear friend, my point. There is no rule stopping people to do BG-step separately for everyone so it can be done. Is my English really that bad or why dont you get my point?

I have failed in ML1.1 numerous times (the encounter has a timer) so if #1 contacts GM the GM will see that #2 still doesn't have the credit so #1 has to stay back untill he gets it.

The point is not what is the easiest/best way to sort it out, the point is what this new rule allows players to do. If there is farmers #1 and #2 GM would say to #1 to stay back untill #2 get the credit.

Still waiting someone to quote the rules I'm breaking in my examples - until then this will remain as my last post in this thread, wont be feeding the trolls who can't be arsed to read what's been said.

The whole point of posting is to discuss, if you think my disagreement implies a lack of understanding of your english (lol) and you then think that as a result of not getting me to agree with you then implies I'm a troll (lol again) I think you aren't used to people nitpicking your argument.


I personally think that this gives a GM the power to judge the situation and enforce a ruling, I don't think it's 100% effective but time will tell if the ruling is more effective than none at all.

Also since the GM was unable to do anything before this ruling appeared doesn't it then follow that the ruling is now here to allow them to do something?

If it puts some people off obstructing ml raids then it's acheived something, if others persist by bending the rules then it's likely the wording will change to accomadate that.
 

Ovi1

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
188
Culanan said:
Also since the GM was unable to do anything before this ruling appeared doesn't it then follow that the ruling is now here to allow them to do something?

No, it FORCES them to do something.

Personally I agree this rule is silly, and opens up a whole can o' worms for the GMs.

What is really needed is a catch all rule, say that anyone doing anything should act in a curteous manner, and refrain from certain actions if asked by a GM.

That would allow GMs to ask anyone to do anything fully utilising their own discretion. We either trust the GMs to act fairly, and give them the power to act, or we end up needing CoC lawyers to decide on every action before we take it.

Personally I prefer the first option, since I am sure the servers would empty rather quickly if they didn't act fairly.
 

Saggy

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,237
Culanan said:
The whole point of posting is to discuss, if you think my disagreement implies a lack of understanding of your english (lol) and you then think that as a result of not getting me to agree with you then implies I'm a troll (lol again) I think you aren't used to people nitpicking your argument.
<Sigh again> How can you disagree with me if you dont even get my point? You are stuck with thinking who and why he would abuse this rule while my point is that this rule should be adjusted to prevent it to be abused. Get it? I have asked very simple questions and yet you dont even bother trying to answer so yes, in my eyes you are just trolling.
Culanan said:
I personally think that this gives a GM the power to judge the situation and enforce a ruling, I don't think it's 100% effective but time will tell if the ruling is more effective than none at all.
Quote that part from that rule since I fail to see it - for me this rule clearly states when GMs can/have to act.
Culanan said:
Also since the GM was unable to do anything before this ruling appeared doesn't it then follow that the ruling is now here to allow them to do something?
Yes, thanks to this rule they are now able to stop people from abusing "the mob belongs to one who pulls it" rule but instead this new rule made room for different type of abuses and as long as you play within the rules there is nothing GMs can do about it (again, feel free to state how I'm breaking rules in my examples).
Thorwyn[B&Q said:
]The point that Saggy is trying to explain is, that with the new rules in effect, it´s - for the first time - possible to CLAIM a mob/encounter because of certain circumstances other than "I was here first". It´s a "I need this, so you have to leave if you don´t need this too" situation. Pushed to the limits, one could now park an entire army of lvl 40 alts at the 1.1 bridge, kill the encounter, then invite a new alt (who needs the step of course) and keep killing. The can require you to have *someone* in your group who needs the encounter, but they can´t tell you how to do it or how many people to invite.
Thank you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom