Policy Questions Thread

[Allielyn]

If you have a question about policy that is not covered in the threads already in this forum, or would like to point to a thread that should be here, this thread is here for your convenience.

It will be periodically cleaned up and condensed so players don't have to sift through pages of information to see what policies have been clarified. :toot:


Previously Clarified:

Re: Raidstalking -
Simply being in the same zone does not count as raid stalking. It's very much a question of intent. Following a raid to snipe their PVP flagged players is not raid stalking if you kill and then get out. Flagging and deflagging your toons as PvP enabled is a trivial process. If you don't want to be PvP'd while raiding, don't flag yourself PvP.

Re: # Of accounts allowed -
You may own as many accounts as you like, but you may never play two characters from the same account.

Re: Account Sharing and loss of pp/items/accounts -
The setup of this server, with free accounts for everyone, means that account sharing becomes incredibly easy. The mechanics of the raid game on a small server further serves to facilitate this sharing - but the discretion you use to share your info is still your own, as is the responsibility for that decision.

When you choose to share your info, you are trusting your character, gear, reputation, account, etc. to a person you may never have met. If they use your account to do dubious things that get your character banned - that's still your responsibility.

To Summarize: We will not reimburse anything that was stolen. Your accounts are your responsibility. We will still ban any thieves we catch.

Re: General Reimbursement of Items:
We do not reimburse players for stuff they looted with the wrong character/destroyed/accidentally gave to their pet under any circumstances. (Players make mistakes. You learn from them)
Exception: Quest critical items that haven't been flagged for the trashbarrel and which you cannot get again (eg. seeker rune would be reimbursed, but a snow kobold ear would not be.) Petition if you fall into this category.

Re: Skipping Content
ANY Mobs (raid or otherwise) which are static cannot be skipped (by training away, or CoTH summoning, corpse summoning and rezzing past, or any other means) without risking a fat ban. Content which is roaming and can be avoided by waiting may be skipped. Specific instances include collecting groundspawns for MoTG, which *must* be done by killing the mobs guarding the growndspawns and cannot be done by flopping a monk around, and also Inner Prison, where none of the mobs are designed to be 'skippable' with the exception of the Farg drop-down which may bypass some content from the long way around. Exception: you may invis and run past mobs which do not see invisibility.

Re: Violating raid cap rules (18-man raids, 12-man adepts, 6-man raid rules)
Using a camped out healer to ressurrect your 18-man raid is against the raid rules. (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17777) Doing so will get your raid leader and guild officers/leaders jailed and/or banned. (The same of course applies to a camped healer to resurrect your 6-man group in a zone which follows 6-man raid rules.)

Out-of-Raid looting
Rewarding loot to players who were camped out or otherwise disengaged during a fight is against the raid rules. Doing so will get your raid leader and guild officers/leaders jailed and/or banned, as well as the character who got loot. This extends to giving level 65 players looting rights from adept mobs. Note that this policy applies even if the raid is the correct size, IE an 18 man raid with one character camped out cannot give loot to the camped (or otherwise disengaged) character. If you want loot, you must be actively assisting the raid during the kill of the mob you want loot from, on the character you want loot on.

This rule applies to normal targets as well; camping your alt while you duo a named so your alt can get 'pristine' droppables or 'no drop' items will get your items revoked and your player may be banned.

**Actively helping means your character is there, with the rest of the raid, doing the raid thing with the raid target. In general, being on the target's aggro list is a fair clarification and being within the level range that allows you to loot the mob's corpse may be considered among other factors. There are some raid encounters in-game wherein the loot rewards are dropped from a lower level NPC box rather than the named mob. This does NOT mean that your level 1 Rabb the Rat alt is allowed loot from the box. The level of the raid mob itself is what is to be taken into consideration. To clarify this, Treasure Map chest higher than Simple can be looted by characters no lower than level 55.

Re: 6-man zones, 'Raid Type Rules' and claimable 'wings'
Seethis thread (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17777) for a list of which raid zones are split into what wings and/or areas, and which are 6-man only zones. Note that 6-man zones follow the same 'raid type rules' which means using a 7th man in the zone for ANYTHING is a punishable offense, same as a 19th man in a raid zone.

Re: Account Usership for non-original owners
We do not keep track of your accounts. If two players who do not own an account dispute an account, it will be locked and nobody will have access until the original owner reclaims it. The Power of Attorney (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=20065) system is in place to help ensure that if you no longer have access to your original account email, you can set up a second, and if you have one player you want to have access, they can have valid 'legal' access.

Re: Questions about why your name was nerfed
See the Naming Policy Clarifications thread (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=21900)

Re: Named Mob rights for groups clearing an area
We don't recognize any camps in SoD, however we do recognize douchebaggery and we punish it. This one is as open-ended as your imagination can suggest. Don't be jerks. This includes (but is not limited to) the following behavior:

Triggering content scripts which you have no intention of attempting just to screw over other players, collecting event-necessary groundspawns which you have no intention of using (Hi MOTG), using higher level characters than the area is designed for to monopolize an unreasonable amount of mobs for the size of your group when there are others looking to hunt in the same area, excessive leapfrogging, pulling a named after another group kilsl its placeholder multiple times, etc

Re: Asking for ETAs on server downtime
Whenever I give an ETA (usually because it's a quick patch) something goes wrong and it always takes 10 times longer than I gave. As a result I only ever give bogus ETAs (usually on the order of days). If I don't feel like giving a bogus ETA, I'll jail you. Moral of the story: Don't ask for ETAs.

Re: Hedging your bets on the 3-boxing rule by claiming an LD character doesn't count
It does. 2 characters in the game at any time, whether LD or not. You risk banning on your two highest level characters and jailing on a third if you violate this rule. (Or, if you give out your character's info as a buffer to someone else who might violate this rule. See the rule on account sharing.)

Re: Can surnames be changed by staff?
If it is inappropriate it will be removed and replaced with an "_" meaning you can't pick another anytime ever. (List of inappropriate surname rules here (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=13160). Otherwise, petition, and someone will likely remove it so you can pick a new one. If this service is abused by player it will be removed. Either that or you'll get an underscore anyways.

Selling no drop items

It is not allowed to 'sell' loot rights to any no drop item, be it a quest item, raid loot, or ancient/relic/archaic turn-in pieces. (Hint: these items are no-drop for a reason; if we wanted you to sell them they would be droppable.) This includes payment in platinum, cash, items, etc. Violators risk banning, items gained this way will be revoked.

Selling services such as leveling exp for in-game pp or paying for somebody in game pp or items to increase your set traps skill is currently allowed. If it is abused we will revoke this privilege.

Thread last updated: Oct 14, 2009

[Dinadass]

I have a question regarding raid zones that require a key.

Places such as ValorB, Outer Prison, CoD, etc require 1 keyed character to allow a raid in. I've been told that guilds are not allowed to kill targets in these zones unless two-thirds of the raid members present have their key. However I've been unable to find any official post or wiki entry that backs this up. Considering there have been pickup raids in these zones, I'm wondering what the justification for this rule is (if it exists). Could a full list of zones (or parts of zones) be posted where this rule applies?

Thank you.

[lynnettell]

http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17429&highlight=keyed+characters

That's the thread you're looking for.

[HandsofChaos]

I am pretty confused. I was wondering if something could be cleared up for me. The only reference I can find relating to the situation is this...

Re: Named Mob rights for groups clearing an area
We don't recognize any camps in SoD, however we do recognize douchebaggery and we punish it. This one is as open-ended as your imagination can suggest. Don't be jerks. This includes (but is not limited to) the following behavior:

Triggering content scripts which you have no intention of attempting just to screw over other players, collecting event-necessary groundspawns which you have no intention of using (Hi MOTG), using higher level characters than the area is designed for to monopolize an unreasonable amount of mobs for the size of your group when there are others looking to hunt in the same area, excessive leapfrogging, pulling a named after another group kills its placeholder multiple times, etc.

From this I assume that a full group of players would win claim to an experience area over one person. Am I correct? And also, I would assume that if a player were to come near a group without conversing with the group to make an agreement of some sorts that person would be putting themselves at risk. Correct? In risk of being trained with mobs that are being pulled or other ways. Maybe AOE spells etc? I would hope a full group wins out over 1 person right?

What confuses me is that from the staff's actions relating to an event of this sort I can only assume that one player can go anywhere he/she want to regardless if a group is farming the area or not. Without assuming any risk to themselves. Where does the line fall with regard to who is disrespecting who? If that one player gets trained or something by pure mistake is the group being disrespectful or is the one player being disrespectful by trying to complete for the same monsters in a area?

Also, one more question please. It is stated here - http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17780 - that petitioning someone for breaking these rules will normally be brought up with all staff online and decided upon a case by case basis. Has this rule been changed of late? I have tried to petition about someone breaking these rules only to have the petitioned dismissed over and over again. I tried to follow the instructions and make the petition "readable or more useful" to the staff and was issued a warning? The staff has reserved the right to selectively choose which issues to rule on and dismiss the others? It is possible for a player with a grievance to have no way to have that grievance heard? What I am saying is that it appears when a player really feels he/she has a valid point wouldn't that player be entitled a reply? Or is it intended that some grievances can be ignored? If so then so be it. However. from the wording it would appear that players are entitled to a reply? This is confusing. It is the only way listed to deal with any grievance with other players.

[Nwaij]

From this I assume that a full group of players would win claim to an experience area over one person. Am I correct? And also, I would assume that if a player were to come near a group without conversing with the group to make an agreement of some sorts that person would be putting themselves at risk. Correct? In risk of being trained with mobs that are being pulled or other ways. Maybe AOE spells etc? I would hope a full group wins out over 1 person right?No. If a player solos/2boxes mobs that actually give him XP, there is no way a group has any more claims on these mobs then the one player. It's also not acceptable to pull mobs THROUGH another group/player, this is almost the definition of training. If you want mobs from past that player, have your group move up past him.

What confuses me is that from the staff's actions relating to an event of this sort I can only assume that one player can go anywhere he/she want to regardless if a group is farming the area or not. Without assuming any risk to themselves. Where does the line fall with regard to who is disrespecting who? If that one player gets trained or something by pure mistake is the group being disrespectful or is the one player being disrespectful by trying to complete for the same monsters in a area? Unless you are in a 6-man-raidzone, it's pretty much this. Allthough it's frowned upon to jump in and snipe a named ion an area where a group has been clearing for hours.

Also, one more question please. It is stated here - http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17780 - that petitioning someone for breaking these rules will normally be brought up with all staff online and decided upon a case by case basis. Has this rule been changed of late? I have tried to petition about someone breaking these rules only to have the petitioned dismissed over and over again. I tried to follow the instructions and make the petition "readable or more useful" to the staff and was issued a warning? The staff has reserved the right to selectively choose which issues to rule on and dismiss the others? It is possible for a player with a grievance to have no way to have that grievance heard? What I am saying is that it appears when a player really feels he/she has a valid point wouldn't that player be entitled a reply? Or is it intended that some grievances can be ignored? If so then so be it. However. from the wording it would appear that players are entitled to a reply? This is confusing. It is the only way listed to deal with any grievance with other players.If your petition gets deleted, it most of the time means that staff came to the conclussion that whatever you petitioned for is not petitionworthy. If you keep petitioning the same not petitionworthy thing time and again, staff might get upset with you and hand out a warning to stop doing it - nothing wrong with that. It's also not unusual that staff handles petitions w/o any form of reply.

[Blubuds]

Re: Skipping Content
ANY Mobs (raid or otherwise) which are static cannot be skipped (by training away, or CoTH summoning, corpse summoning and rezzing past, or any other means) without risking a fat ban. Content which is roaming and can be avoided by waiting may be skipped. Specific instances include collecting groundspawns for MoTG, which *must* be done by killing the mobs guarding the growndspawns and cannot be done by flopping a monk around, and also Inner Prison, where none of the mobs are designed to be 'skippable' with the exception of the Farg drop-down which may bypass some content from the long way around. Exception: you may invis and run past mobs which do not see invisibility.



This is a question about Emberflow Recently I was there clearing our way in while another group had wiped Recently and was Flopping there way back to rez. As was a full wipe. They way I see this is content skipping if it was intended to be all skipped on way back it would have longer respawns so you could just run. Now they said it was wipe recovery, i can see a point of not wanted to clear it all again. But I in no way would think this was alright. So i'm posting here for a Ruling on this.

[Vartenaal]

this is something ive been hearing for quite a while and have seen irc quotes that say that thaz essences can be TRADED for other essences or GIVEN AWAY FREE of charge.

couldn’t find an official post on forums, would just like an official statement from staff plz

[Silosobi]

Ok, I would like some clarification regarding "selling no drop loot" and "selling exp"

So, I often see groups where people say "come get exp with us, but we keep all the cash" First off, is this considered selling exp?

Say this group is in kedge, the leader keeps all cash/droppable loot. If armor molds drop, are the other players allowed to loot them? Its obviously not the intention of the group to sell no drop gear, but in a somewhat indirect way this is being done.

I would like to be able to invite others along to make exp/cash farming go more quickly, but if them ninjaing a no drop item puts me at risk, I wont do it any more.

Now... if the above group is okay, what about when people actually request pay for an exp grind group? Ex: Highend monk/cleric go to EC and grind exp hard, with some low gear/AA 65s actually paying for the exp. Are these toons not allowed to loot any of the ears/quest items that drop due to the fact that they payed for the group?

I'm wondering if a GM can clarify where exactly the line would be drawn in these types of situations.

[Nwaij]

Ok, I would like some clarification regarding "selling no drop loot" and "selling exp"Selling NoDrop loot is never acceptable, selling XP for ingame money is.

So, I often see groups where people say "come get exp with us, but we keep all the cash" First off, is this considered selling exp?How loot/cash is distributed within a group is the business of the group and only of the group.

Say this group is in kedge, the leader keeps all cash/droppable loot. If armor molds drop, are the other players allowed to loot them? Its obviously not the intention of the group to sell no drop gear, but in a somewhat indirect way this is being done.See above.

I would like to be able to invite others along to make exp/cash farming go more quickly, but if them ninjaing a no drop item puts me at risk, I wont do it any more.There is no such risk. In fact, back in the day when I was farming for my charm, I had 1-4 AFK toons sitting around with me leeching XP, and more then once it was a player toon of a GM.

Now... if the above group is okay, what about when people actually request pay for an exp grind group? Ex: Highend monk/cleric go to EC and grind exp hard, with some low gear/AA 65s actually paying for the exp. Are these toons not allowed to loot any of the ears/quest items that drop due to the fact that they payed for the group?In my understanding this would be legal, althoug I'd consider it very rude from the high end not just to keep all the loot but also ask the others to pay for being grouped with him.

[Ikaa|LoveYums]

First off, is this considered selling exp?

No, no transaction is taking place, so this can't even be called selling nothing. Just be sure to establish loot rules beforehand.

Say this group is in kedge, the leader keeps all cash/droppable loot. If armor molds drop, are the other players allowed to loot them? Its obviously not the intention of the group to sell no drop gear, but in a somewhat indirect way this is being done.

I would like to be able to invite others along to make exp/cash farming go more quickly, but if them ninjaing a no drop item puts me at risk, I wont do it any more.

Same as above.

Now... if the above group is okay, what about when people actually request pay for an exp grind group? Ex: Highend monk/cleric go to EC and grind exp hard, with some low gear/AA 65s actually paying for the exp. Are these toons not allowed to loot any of the ears/quest items that drop due to the fact that they payed for the group?

I'm wondering if a GM can clarify where exactly the line would be drawn in these types of situations.

Whether or not it's your intention, it sounds like you are looking for loopholes in clarification which is why the lines are not drawn. Even if you aren't, someone will. What you are suggesting now is only a short step away from selling loot under the guise of selling xp, which, if the current staff determines that it has become a problem, will end in changing loot and xp codes to prevent both.

[Silosobi]

I'm not looking for loopholes, I just want to make sure i dont break rules.

I go to DN sometimes and let random people come and dps/loot armor (i keep coin, and endlessly search for a robe). I did my ooc one time and had about 10 people want to join, and when i said too many people, some said they'd donate to get in. I said cool, but then a friend told me that would be "selling no drop loot" and i could get banned. After reading this thread, i don't know if I'd be breaking rules or not. If a GM can clarify this issue that'd be great.

Can someone donate/pay for an exp group, and then loot no drop stuff by chance (not as the intent of the group)? Should I just say no donations allowed? Should I just not let others join at all if I'm keeping coin?

[Nwaij]

I'm not looking for loopholes, I just want to make sure i dont break rules.

I go to DN sometimes and let random people come and dps/loot armor (i keep coin, and endlessly search for a robe). I did my ooc one time and had about 10 people want to join, and when i said too many people, some said they'd donate to get in. I said cool, but then a friend told me that would be "selling no drop loot" and i could get banned. After reading this thread, i don't know if I'd be breaking rules or not. If a GM can clarify this issue that'd be great.

Can someone donate/pay for an exp group, and then loot no drop stuff by chance (not as the intent of the group)? Should I just say no donations allowed? Should I just not let others join at all if I'm keeping coin?
Letting people in for XP is allways on the save side.
Asking them for donations is legal, though some might consider it rude.
Accepting money from them and letting em loot nodrop items might get you into trouble - better not to do this.

I'd recommend to handle this on a strict 1st come 1st served basis, and no money involved at all.

[Silosobi]

Yeah, thats what I'm gonna do unless a GM says something else here. Kind of lame when someone offers donation and I have to say 'sorry, but if you donate, you aren't allowed to loot any armor.'

[ruach]

regarding

"Selling no drop items

It is not allowed to 'sell' loot rights to any no drop item, be it a quest item, raid loot, or ancient/relic/archaic turn-in pieces. (Hint: these items are no-drop for a reason; if we wanted you to sell them they would be droppable.) This includes payment in platinum, cash, items, etc. Violators risk banning, items gained this way will be revoked.
"


Would it be against the rules for me to organize a pickup raid, achieve the objective of said raid(specifically defined by me as its organizer perhaps a quest drop or killing a quest mob), and then offer a "pp lotto" at the end of the raid for players who helped out to roll on?

I would not be selling an item, since I would be giving money to the other players, the players receiving the money would in no way have control over the items, if for example loot rules ahead of time clearly stipulated all items of "x" type are distributed in "y" manner. additionally as it would be a pug raid there would not be a single guild or or group of players getting the money, furthermore the money would be distributed at randomly to, so no defined benefit could be assumed for any potential player.

[ruach]

another thought,

If 18 players choose to exp together, not targeting a specific raid target just killing trash for example, the leader of those players could clearly define the loot rules, and he could pay the other 17 members of the raid for helping him exp in the manner he sees fit?

[metvayne1]

that really sounds like circumventing the "no paying for loot rights" policy to me

[fuwok]

It presents an interesting situation.

Is hiring people to participate in your raids tantamount to paying for loot rights? I thought that rule was to stop users from selling people raid slots.

[ruach]

It presents an interesting situation.

Is hiring people to participate in your raids tantamount to paying for loot rights? I thought that rule was to stop users from selling people raid slots.

that was my understanding, too keep people from selling raid slots. I am just hiring someone to provide a service, such as a port, or buff, helping me level, or doing a craft combine

[ruach]

that really sounds like circumventing the "no paying for loot rights" policy to me

right but it is my pug raid, i can assign the loot however i see fit, just like i can in an exp group, if i choose to be nice and give some pp to players whats the issue?

the players are not selling me the loot rights, as it is my pug raid they have agreed ahead of time to let me manage loot as i see fit, and in the case i am curious about it would be useless for everyone else anyway.

[Syalara]

The original intent as has been said before was to prevent guilds from selling raid slots so people who were not able to obtain random_item_205 or spell_frag_02 could not effectively sidestep the no drop status on raid loots by paying for a slot in a raid.

What you seem to be doing from what I see in ooc is buying a raidforce so you can obtain something you need. The payment is with either raid loot or plat, I believe you say so clearly when you /ooc this type of thing. Something along the lines of "those who do not need or get any loot will get plat" (paraphrasing obv).

The difference is minor at best.

I can not imagine a situation where it would be a big nono to sell a slot in a raid but a-ok to buy a raidforce.

Sure, its your pug and you can determine how you distribute loot/cash BUT you are blatantly using the loot and cash as payment.

Regardless of any wording of any current rule, I would find it difficult to believe what you are doing is within the spirit of how things are meant to be done. Possibly this type of behavior was unavoidable with the way some quests have been designed but it certainly leaves a sour taste in my mouth to see people buy raids and I do hope this type of issue is addressed either through better quest design or by some kind of ruling.

[bignirish88]

I don't see how there's a problem with someone wanting to make it worth peoples time to join his raid when he's going after quest items. Ruach said in his OOC messages he was aiming at mobs which drop little other than the quest items he's after. however i do understand how hard a rule it would be to enforce, because it's basically splitting hairs but he was by no means purchasing no drop items. he was, as he said, providing an incentive to those willing to help him farm for a quest item that doesn't doesn't bring good exp/plat or loot. Its hard to motivate people who aren't guilded with him or receive any benefit from doing so otherwise.
there has got to be a way to make what ruach wants to do, legal, cause i see no problem with trying to gather a raid force to go kill trash in a planar zone, he was merely trying to expedite the process and perhaps get some better players who were LFG in athica to join him for a small financial incentive.

[ruach]

I don't see how there's a problem with someone wanting to make it worth peoples time to join his raid when he's going after quest items. Ruach said in his OOC messages he was aiming at mobs which drop little other than the quest items he's after. however i do understand how hard a rule it would be to enforce, because it's basically splitting hairs but he was by no means purchasing no drop items. he was, as he said, providing an incentive to those willing to help him farm for a quest item that doesn't doesn't bring good exp/plat or loot. Its hard to motivate people who aren't guilded with him or receive any benefit from doing so otherwise.
there has got to be a way to make what ruach wants to do, legal, cause i see no problem with trying to gather a raid force to go kill trash in a planar zone, he was merely trying to expedite the process and perhaps get some better players who were LFG in athica to join him for a small financial incentive.



thats basically the ethics behind my point, I am not even talking about tons of pp like a couple k per item to be lotto'd, just to provide some other then absurdly anemic exp as a reward for helping me.

[Renshu]

thats basically the ethics behind my point, I am not even talking about tons of pp like a couple k per item to be lotto'd, just to provide some other then absurdly anemic exp as a reward for helping me.

Kill Wormwood or w/e while getting your quest pieces and let the p/u peeps roll on the loot like a normal p/u raid.

[ruach]

Kill Wormwood or w/e while getting your quest pieces and let the p/u peeps roll on the loot like a normal p/u raid.

Yes, but you see the trash is up when the raid targets aren't therefore it easier to arrange a pug raid for trash farming, and you can kill just trash with less people.

Besides no one has answered the question "If it is my pug raid/group and can assign loot as I see fit, how it it wrong to auto myself the items I want (which no one else on the raid has a claim to or could even use) and then offer a pp lotto at the end??"

I am not selling something: "no drop loots" which is the rule.

[JDJersey]

Pretty sure you're fine. So long as everyone knows thats the loot rule at the begining. And if you're farming for your vah sword, shoot me a tell when youre trying to get a pug, I'll help with that.

[Allielyn]

As long as loot rules are well established at the beginning, and everybody agrees to them, you can raid with whatever loot rules you want, including reserving specific potential drops for your player.

But

You cannot distribute anything to the raid that did not come from the raid; i.e. that is not explicitly loot. Platinum that is explicitly looted within the raid can be distributed among players that did not win items if you so choose; this could be considered similar to a "split" among group members at the end of an exp session.

However, you cannot pay the players in the raid from platinum or items on your player or in your bank for helping you achieve any raid-necessary objective. If we find you have done this, we will revoke your item or items; and you won't get your money back either.

If the line is too confusing for you guys, we'll disallow payment for services as well. Consider that a warning.

[ruach]

As long as loot rules are well established at the beginning, and everybody agrees to them, you can raid with whatever loot rules you want, including reserving specific potential drops for your player.

But

You cannot distribute anything to the raid that did not come from the raid; i.e. that is not explicitly loot. Platinum that is explicitly looted within the raid can be distributed among players that did not win items if you so choose; this could be considered similar to a "split" among group members at the end of an exp session.

However, you cannot pay the players in the raid from platinum or items on your player or in your bank for helping you achieve any raid-necessary objective. If we find you have done this, we will revoke your item or items; and you won't get your money back either.

If the line is too confusing for you guys, we'll disallow payment for services as well. Consider that a warning.


Since there are no "raid targets" involved so clearly your rules about rewarding a players with items obtained only from the raid cannot apply, this is simply7-18 players exping off trash mobs


So your saying I cannot create additional incentive for a player to help me with this one single type of button pushing. Compared to all the other types of button pushing it is permissible to pay to do?

You still have not answered my question: When arranging a "pug raid/exp group" with clearly defined loot rules who is "selling no drop items"

Just tell me who Is selling the no drop items, because I cannot see a chain of ownership.

A sale does not exist, this fits exactly within the context for paid leveling or other such services like buying a port or a buff or a craft combine.

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

You still have not answered my question: When arranging a "pug raid/exp group" with clearly defined loot rules who is "selling no drop items"

Just tell me who Is selling the no drop items, because I cannot see a chain of ownership.

A sale does not exist, this fits exactly within the context for paid leveling or other such services like buying a port or a buff or a craft combine.

You are paying to obtain a drop. The raid you put together, therefore, is selling it; it just doesn't happen to be a pre-existing entity before you assemble it. In the end it's the same situation as a raid selling loot rights for an item, it's just that you are putting together that raid for that purpose.

[ruach]

You are paying to obtain a drop. The raid you put together, therefore, is selling it; it just doesn't happen to be a pre-existing entity before you assemble it. In the end it's the same situation as a raid selling loot rights for an item, it's just that you are putting together that raid for that purpose.

As stated before :Loot distribution is up to the organizers.
This is not targeting raid mobs, merely trash players exp of of raid trash on a regular basis.
players #7-18 are merely assisting me to kill the trash, I can pay people how i see fit for this service. I am not buying anything, in fact do to the lotto mechanic no single player can claim they have a definite claim on payment at all.

The raid has nothing to sell to me because:
1. It is my raid all the loot belongs to me, therefore they cant "sell" me anything
2. The players before joining the raid do not have any rights to the loot before joining the group/raid be

By your logic any combination of players has some sort of right to any and all loot simultaneously.

Furthermore:
This is really a moot point because of the age of EQ and game design "no drop" quest items simply represent a flag be it for a single kill or a kill X based on probability.

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

As stated before :Loot distribution is up to the organizers.
This is not targeting raid mobs, merely trash players exp of of raid trash on a regular basis.
players #7-18 are merely assisting me to kill the trash, I can pay people how i see fit for this service.

Actually, you can't according to the server admin. ;) Loot distribution is fine. Your own PP is not loot distribution, as it's not loot.

I am not buying anything, in fact do to the lotto mechanic no single player can claim they have a definite claim on payment at all.


But they have a chance at that claim. If you're not buying anything, do it without paying any of your own PP and/or items, and everyone is happy! If you're supplying PP or items, you are indeed paying. You are getting something, and in return you are giving something. Just because it's not a pre-identified individual doesn't make it any less of a sale. And trying to find a hole in the ruling will not make it any less of a punishment if you're caught.

[ruach]

Actually, you can't according to the server admin. ;) Loot distribution is fine. Your own PP is not loot distribution, as it's not loot.



But they have a chance at that claim. If you're not buying anything, do it without paying any of your own PP and/or items, and everyone is happy! If you're supplying PP or items, you are indeed paying. You are getting something, and in return you are giving something. Just because it's not a pre-identified individual doesn't make it any less of a sale. And trying to find a hole in the ruling will not make it any less of a punishment if you're caught.

People who join my pug raid have 0 claim to anything.
Since joining my effort the forgo any claim to loot.
Are you saying that any random combination of players has an absolute claim to any loot anywhere on the server at any time?
Therefore they cannot be selling me anything other then their helping "leveling"
These are trash mobs, there are no real loots every time i have cleared them its been 50pp max, and there are no random loots off substance.

I think the burden is on the people who don't like the idea of me killing trash mobs with more then 6 people, you need to show the harm I am causing, especially in light of the original intent of not selling raid slots to under tier people. Literally anyone who wants can port up and exp/farm the trash mobs.

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

Please stop making random shit up and claiming that's what I'm saying.

Yes, anyone can port up and kill the stuff, but if you are claiming specific drops, you can't offer any of them any chance of getting anything of your own to do so per Allielyn's post. If you don't like that interpretation of the rules, please refer to the rules about this not being your sandbox. :toot:

[ruach]

Please stop making random shit up and claiming that's what I'm saying.

Yes, anyone can port up and kill the stuff, but if you are claiming specific drops, you can't offer any of them any chance of getting anything of your own to do so per Allielyn's post. If you don't like that interpretation of the rules, please refer to the rules about this not being your sandbox. :toot:

My apologies if you took offense to how I applied your statements to my logic of the rules.

I am still waiting for a clear answer as to who is harmed by my proposition, and how this fits within the original intent of rule that being keeping undertier people from paying for raid slots.

Can you please indicate who the harmed party of my actions is?

My argument is that the offering of the lotto is completely disconnected from the obtaining of any items, because the other members of the raid have severed any interest they might have by joining the raid. They simply act as a paid group members, payment being highly variable.


According to what you and her have said the following should be acceptable:

So if for example i arranged a pug raid, with no claiming of the loot. Then it would be legal (for me to give away my money) because according to your logic the raids "claim" is still intact? at that point i would simply be offering a lotto for fun, since there would be no relationship between the two.

I could even offer a nominal "grouping fee" payment to those willing to help. That would be entirely legal as well from what Allielyn has said.

[robopirateninja]

It doesn't "hurt" anyone, to macroquest yourself to 65 to save some time, but it's still against the rules.

Make some friends who will help you without being paid, then circumventing the rules on buying and selling raidloot won't be an issue.


According to what you and her have said the following should be acceptable:

So if for example i arranged a pug raid, with no claiming of the loot. Then it would be legal (for me to give away my money) because according to your logic the raids "claim" is still intact? at that point i would simply be offering a lotto for fun, since there would be no relationship between the two.

I could even offer a nominal "grouping fee" payment to those willing to help. That would be entirely legal as well from what Allielyn has said.

Actually, what Allielyn said was:

If the line is too confusing for you guys, we'll disallow payment for services as well. Consider that a warning.

[Dimmi]

Not to chillville shit-up this thread, but...

Man, look here.

I gave you spawn timers on several contested vah mobs.

I asked if that was worthy of the "bounty" you were offering, and you said "Payment is only on successful drops."

Your intent is obvious, half the server knows you've been buying your way through the vah quest for months. Stop trying to use your non-functional stoner brain to loophole around the rules.

PS Where's my money for those spawn timers?

[Nwaij]

So wait, I'm confused now. Can I hire some lowbies to clear only specific mobs in unnamed lowbie areas, so that the things I need drops off might spawn (shared spawn), or not?

If not, the likely course of action would be me killing everything to get my stuff spawned, and I really don't think THAT is how things are supposed to work.

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

So wait, I'm confused now. Can I hire some lowbies to clear only specific mobs in unnamed lowbie areas, so that the things I need drops off might spawn (shared spawn), or not?

If not, the likely course of action would be me killing everything to get my stuff spawned, and I really don't think THAT is how things are supposed to work.

The intent of the rule is to prevent people from paying other people for items that they would otherwise would not be able to get. Your example is completely outside the scope of intent, since you can obviously achieve the same thing without paying others.

Ruach's example, however obtusely he is paying others, is exactly what the rule was meant to prevent; paying other people for items that he would otherwise not be able to get.

As Tyrone implied, it has nothing to do with anyone else being harmed in any way. Items that are meant to be buyable are not no drop (with the exception of Thaz essences, and that's for the convenience factor); No Drop items are not meant to be buyable, directly or indirectly.

[Patrick1211]

Is it ok to have someone outside the raid rez after wipes on adepts?

I get why it's bad to do it on end game raids, but I don't think it hurts anyone on adepts.

Just looking for some clarification! Thanks.

[Nwaij]

Is it ok to have someone outside the raid rez after wipes on adepts?

I get why it's bad to do it on end game raids, but I don't think it hurts anyone on adepts.

Just looking for some clarification! Thanks.

Why should there be any difference between endgame raids and adept raids? Even more so, in quite a lot zones with adepts, you (your rezzer) can bind.

[Patrick1211]

Well, the way I see it an outside rezzer for an end game raid can help a guild skip content in the form of respawns, or even just rezzing people past certain mobs. There's competition for these mobs and another guild might be waiting for the people who wiped to give up, or take long enough that they pass the timer set up for wipes.

With adepts you're not really competing against anyone but the mob, as I've never seen more than one raid forming for any one adept. So an outside rezzer would just help save time.

The difference, in my opinion, is that you aren't hurting anyone with adepts. Against the letter but not the spirit, so to speak. I've seen it done before so I just want to make sure that's cause they don't care or they've just never had it reported.

[Nwaij]

Well, the way I see it an outside rezzer for an end game raid can help a guild skip content in the form of respawns, or even just rezzing people past certain mobs. There's competition for these mobs and another guild might be waiting for the people who wiped to give up, or take long enough that they pass the timer set up for wipes.

Raid trash respawn is counted in hours (usually 8+), so repop isn't really an issue.
Rezzing past mobs is content skipping and will be punished in it's own right.
Claims on a raidtarget last for ~2h after any given wipe. If you can not recover in 2h, you prolly gave up anyways

[Syalara]

As much as I dislike many of the silly and pointless rules that have cropped up over the years here, this one is fine. As Nwaij said, your rezzer (in raid) can likely bind in the zone anyway, so suck it up and run the rezzer instead of asking for a rule to be modified. Sure, you could save some time by having an out of raid rezzer but is it really that much of a bother for a single rezzer in the raid to alter their bind spot for awhile?

That said...who really gives a shit?

The rule would be almost impossible to enforce as it pertains to Adepts anyway. Granted, SoD raiding is nothing but glorified Adept hunting in 2.0 anyway but since the Adept flagged mobs are usually in regular xp zones...who is to say that the out of raid person that rezzed somebody in was not just a kind dude who saw a player die and wanted to help out? Depending on the fight it is very possible for a rezzing class or caster to die a fair bit away from the actual adept and a passerby may honestly have no inkling a raid was taking place and rez them. Are people gonna start comparing IP's of the dead folks vs the rezzer? That would be a pretty sad day.

[Patrick1211]

I'm not arguing why the rules or there or even trying to change them. I was just looking for clarification from the people who make those decisions. Mostly, because I don't consider adepts and end game raids to be the same, but that's just my opinion.

[Tarutao]

They're both "raid" situations. Each Adept is different, but it would be very clearly non-kosher to do that in a raid on Lord Commander Ragarti. His location deep in Mielech B is part of the deal, and an outside rezzer helping skip past the surrounding mobs would be quite inappropriate. The remainder of the cases are situations where you can port back nearby or even bind yourself in the zone with the Adept. In either situation, an outside rezzer is inappropriate.

Randomly rezzing someone else's corpse is in incredibly bad taste and shouldn't happen anyway.

[Ravor]

Post 51 (http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showpost.php?p=194139&postcount=51)

Bump. Noteworthy also should be, low level alts in wars. Unless I'm mistaken, a few months ago someone won roll on a war drop and placed the loot on their level 29. Sure the gray area is if that alt was in aggro range but we all know that the moment it is it'd be dead. The person likely had that character parked safely away. I'm not sure why the war leader didn't rule that loot right out let alone anyone reporting it. I would had but that was before I was aware of this thread apart from the standard rules.

[cats74]

It has been suggested to me that assisting lower level players on quests is not permitted. I thought I should check that as part of my guild event, that was part of the plan.

I did take a look at the section on "selling no drop items" and wonder if that would apply at all. This is the plan, subject to change now. I have been donated a Wyvern heart. I was planning on giving that to our grand prize winner, and escorting them around to collect the rest of the no drops. This is an added "extra" to the other stuff won in the <Moontree> guild contest, and obviously don't change for it.

Could someone assure me this is gonna be okay? Last thing I wanna do is get jailed for helping out because I was in violation of the rules.

[BeittilBonker]

As far as I know helping ppl with quest stuff is perfectly fine, going to zone X to kill mob Y and collect item Z for a person isnt bad. Just dont think about demanding to get paid for it.

It happens occasionally that ppl offer a person plat to help them, thats ok to accept if u wish. But asking plat for you help counts as selling no drop items imho.

[Kakos]

If you have a question about policy that is not covered in the threads already in this forum, or would like to point to a thread that should be here, this thread is here for your convenience.

Can we get some clarification under the beginning of this thread, or the raid rule thread under policies regarding the 2/3rds rule.

I and a number of people were under the impression that the 2/3rds rule was more to do with the issue on if there was a conflict on which guild had claim rights to a zone. That if there was no conflict over it, it didn't matter as long as you had enough people to get your groups in.

I've been looking under policies, and I don't see anything that clarifies this. So I did a search under SoD disussion and I found the following thread.

http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17429&highlight=2%2F3rds

The thread was not created by a GM, and in it there was a lot of "we're really fuzzy on the issue" but if you read through the entire thread you get the gist that GMs want the raid forces to have 2/3rds of members keyed or it is considered content skipping.

Anyway, my point is that there was an honest misunderstanding on the rules last night, and although this is a strict liability offense it would be nice if the rule was posted clearly by a GM in the proper section.

Also, so there is no confusion, does that mean to do Duke thanes in Mercy, we need to have 2/3rds of our raid force fully keyed?

[Dinadass]

We had a similar issue in ToT last night. The first Farhag mini was up, nobody else was in zone or there to dispute it or whatever. Dev-Slaar showed up and checked to see if we had 2/3 of the raid flagged, and we didn't have enough so we were told to leave.

I was also under the impression that if there wasn't another raid force contesting a mob that it didn't matter, but Slaar said it is still classified as skipping content regardless. Can't say that I think it's a good policy but them's the breaks I guess.

I don't think you need 2/3 keyed for deeper CoMercy, just like you don't need to have 2/3 of a raid with the nightmare mirror to do dis/byw/sisters, or 2/3 of a valor b raid to each have a key. However, 2/3 of your raid does need to have done the earlier fights in the zone that give the orbs/keys. That's the case with Valor B anyway, so I'd assume it's the same elsewhere.

[Cyzaine]

City of Mercy does indeed follow the 2/3 rule, just as EVERY raid zone I know of does. That you weren't caught doesn't make it right.

[Kakos]

City of Mercy does indeed follow the 2/3 rule, just as EVERY raid zone I know of does. That you weren't caught doesn't make it right.

Wow.. guys please make this clear then, I guarantee you people are not intentionally breaking rules.. A ton of us are fully keyed for Mercy... but 2/3rds of us.. I would have to check but doubt it.

Can someone please edit the first post in the Raid policy section and spell it out.. because it is one thing to say ignorance is no excuse, but it's not fair to jail people for it if you don't at least post the rules.. this is not something you would intuitively think you were doing wrong.

[Dinadass]

City of Mercy does indeed follow the 2/3 rule, just as EVERY raid zone I know of does. That you weren't caught doesn't make it right.

The nameds only drop 1 orb per kill, don't they? Meaning a guild would have to kill each one 12 times before being allowed to kill the next?

Or does 2/3 of your raid have to have done the previous nameds before, but not necessarily have been awarded the orb? That would seem more in line with how nightmare works.

[Vartenaal]

could we get an update on the 6man content in ikisith? what is/isnt 6 man, what has wings etc

[Magina]

The nameds only drop 1 orb per kill, don't they? Meaning a guild would have to kill each one 12 times before being allowed to kill the next?

i'm 99% sure it's fine as long as the player was there to kill it, so you'd only need one orb if my understanding is correct.

As per the 2/3rds rule, that shit has been around for a very long time and I knew about it the second I hit PoN and OP, no idea how it has evaded so many apparently. It would be nice to have it put in this thread though.

[Kakos]

The nameds only drop 1 orb per kill, don't they? Meaning a guild would have to kill each one 12 times before being allowed to kill the next?

Basically it would go like this

Herga - Kill 12 times, once you have 12 people then you can go to inner temples
4 Bosses of Inner temples - Kill them 12 times each (48 boss kills)
Tidemistress 1.0/Hymmaster - Kill them each 12 times each (24boss kills)

That's 84 boss kills before you can do Duke Thanes.. that's if you keyed the same 12 people.

[Cyzaine]

http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17429 is the most recent official ruling on the 2/3's rule I could find. Probably should be stickied, but it's not a new rule.

To clarify the 2/3's rule further, since the information is spread out...


Guild A beats the first key mob for comercy. Bob loots the key. Your guild is considered keyed, even though only 1 dropped and Bob got it. You have proven that your guild is capable of moving forward.

Later Bob leaves the Guild A and joins Guild B. Guild B hasn't killed the key mob. To use Bob's key is illegal. Guild B would be considered content skipping, and would likely have any earned loot revoked.

Later a PuG raid starts up. Guild A sends most of their members in, and they hook up with other folks, including Alice who already has the key. In this case the 2/3's rule comes into play. Have 2/3's of the participants participated in whatever it takes to be keyed/flagged? If not, then moving forward is considered content skipping, and your loot is subject to be revoked.

Further examples include, but are not limited too...


If your guild hasn't killed Taeshlin, you can't go past him into IP
If your guild hasn't killed Herga, you can't go to the courtyard
If your guild hasn't beaten Dis, they can't go to Before You Wake

BUT


If your guild has killed Herga, and you get a few new members, you are fine, even though not everyone has a key.
If your guild has killed DotO, you can all go into Caverns of Darkness, even though you only have 6 keys.

'Keying' is a lazy, deceptive term, and has little to do with the physical key.

The 2/3 rule primarily comes into play in mixed guild, guild merging, or severe guild reconstruction situations. Otherwise your guild is considered the entity who overcame the challenge.



Of note, since some of you like to know the reasoning behind this sort of thing, is that the only viable alternative to this is individual key and flagging. That way its very clear, without question in fact, if you belong in an area or not. Now I think we all remember Vex Thal and know how NOT fun that was, and to a lesser extent the zerg fest that was PoP flagging. We obviously don't want that, yet we still believe in progression and making you earn this sort of stuff. The 2/3's rule is a compromise towards that, and serves fairly well in that regard. A bit ambiguous at times? Maybe. But certainly far, far more convenient than the alternatives.


Also lets head off some questions I foresee.

What happens if 10 of us are keyed, but 8 of us are not!?
No matter the reasoning here (guild reconstruction, alts, etc) this will have to be investigated by a GM. 2/3 is a rule of thumb, not the rule, just for these sort of cases. Depending on the circumstances it may be deemed allowed, it might not be. If you don't want their to be a question, make sure the super majority of the guild is keyed/flagged.

What zones does this count for?
All 18 man raid zones that allow you to to skip encounters, without exception. I am hesitant to comment on relevant six man areas (cmal comes to mind), don't believe they fall into this from prior experience.

[Sagiscorpius]

Ok, someone told me that when making a new guild. Even tho all your toons are flagged and meet up to the 2/3 raid rule. That we have to reflag anyway. Sorta doesn't make sense. Since you can't hail the spirits in tot over again to get the flag. I just want to be clear here. Cuz not one person in the guild doesn't have flags.

[Allielyn]

Ok, someone told me that when making a new guild. Even tho all your toons are flagged and meet up to the 2/3 raid rule. That we have to reflag anyway. Sorta doesn't make sense. Since you can't hail the spirits in tot over again to get the flag. I just want to be clear here. Cuz not one person in the guild doesn't have flags.

If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

[Syalara]

If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

I am completely confused by this.

The 2/3 rule was put into place to ensure that the majority of a raid has already completed access/flagging to whatever content they wish to go after. Why should guild tag matter? Were it a PUG all that would be taken into account is if 2/3 have or have not completed the required content/flagging previously, right? Why hold people accountable to a higher standard simply because the tag changes? If 2/3rds have keys/are flagged/have completed the previous content even if under a new guild tag...why should they have to redo it?

I am sure its not a major issue really but why have this caveat to a rule for new guilds?

What am I missing?

Common sense means different things to different people apparently. To me common sense says that if 2/3rds of a PUG or existing guild or newly formed guild have completed the prerequisites for whatever encounter is in question, then they should be able to just do it.

[Magina]

If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

So you're saying that say, a new guild that just formed of t9 people who doens't have *every* main in the curret raidforce flagged for say, Mephar, would have to do all the content up to it? Or am I missing the point entirely?

[Jessamyn]

Kind of new here, and had some questions about the Three Boxing Rule. I did a search already and didn't see anything turn up.

I read and understand the rules, so I usually dual box. My question is, I'm trying to tempt my boyfriend into playing with me. We live together, have different computers, but use the same service provider (IP). Would I still be able to dual box and have him play with, or would that be considered three boxing as it would be 3 accounts on the same IP playing at the same time?

Just want to clarify =)

Thanks!

[bignirish88]

Hi! my girlfriend and i play sod together all the time, and we 4 box often. Simply put each PERSON is allowed to play two accounts at one time. If a gm/dev/admin has a question as to whether or not you are three boxing, they may ask you to perform a test (this involves simply proving that it's two people at the keyboard rather than one person by moving around independently one each other, nothing to be nervous about). so happy sodding!

[Tarutao]

It is always interesting to see the big red flag when there's an SoD LAN party.

If it's actually two of you and neither of you is playing more than 2 characters, then you have nothing to worry about.

[Otcho]

Is any dev able to reconfirm the rules on the tot epic turn in? A while back I recall a number of people wanting to join our raids for the purpose and know we eventually got some dev/gm to confirm that all they had to do was ask for our permission and if we did not care they could use the well after we killed it regardless or being in the raid. I cannot remember what dev said it was ok, nor do I have logs to check and i'm failing hard at finding any post about it.

[Dimmi]

Pretty sure you have to be part of the raid to do your turn in.

Loot Reward Rights-

Those in the raid force who have actively helped achieve the raid objective are those who lay claims to loot gained by that raid. This goes for quest items, regular equipment and even quest flags/turn ins achieved from that raid.

[vistachiri]

Is any dev able to reconfirm the rules on the tot epic turn in? A while back I recall a number of people wanting to join our raids for the purpose and know we eventually got some dev/gm to confirm that all they had to do was ask for our permission and if we did not care they could use the well after we killed it regardless or being in the raid. I cannot remember what dev said it was ok, nor do I have logs to check and i'm failing hard at finding any post about it.

That was nixed as I recall. Kaz's flamescar was revoked as a result.

If they are part of the raid pretty sure its all well and good.

[Otcho]

That was nixed as I recall. Kaz's flamescar was revoked as a result.

If they are part of the raid pretty sure its all well and good.

This was done well after this kazimir being owned, previous to this time in giggly the spirit would refuse to give you the turn in if you did not have a flag you got from killing high chieftain that night(Boca flipped the fuck out in exodus over this), however one day we noticed that flag disappeared when some other guild had some dude who was camped out log in after they entered well and take the turn in leading to us asking what exactly the requirements were.

[ghostman816]

Had a question regarding a player stating "need" when an item dropped, winning the roll, then selling the said "needed" item at a later time. A [bind if equip] item in fact, therefore being the fact they never used the item or had no need for it, simply looting for greed. Whether doing this was an offense under rule 6. player conduct or on the first post where you said "general douchebaggery" and whether or not it is punishable?

[Allielyn]

General douchebaggery. I probably wouldn't punish this specific instance from a staffer perspective - not because it isn't wrong; but because I prefer to let the playerbase, which is small and pretty interconnected, police itself.

If this player continues to make bad decisions, he might find that nobody wants to group with him. Ever again. He might also find that while we may not actively police minor douchebaggery, we won't be so kind after we've heard a few such reports.

So, if you like, go ahead and report it. Even if we don't take an active role in sorting things out, the guy will have another tick on his name.

[ghostman816]

I understand your view, but I feel like out of all the players. If I said something in /ooc. (which I haven't) It would only bring flame and heat back to my name. and why should I suffer for trying to warn other people and just seek justice. It might just make it harder for me to find groups if I /ooc'd. I would rather just not group with the person again than to bring flame back to me.

Mainly, because I don't have 100% proof that the player didn't kill the mob again. The selling happened 8 hours after. Except I know the player never put the item on after winning the item. Logged without putting it on (an hour or so after the roll happened). the player also suicide gated to bind after group, so they would have had to run all that way back to the monster. If it was need, they would have put the item on when he got it. But the possibility is there that they logged on, immediately got a group who stated they were killing the same thing, and so they delayed putting it on. Put the item on their box after they killed and had 2. Possible, but not likely

[Luthien]

Announcing bad behavior in /ooc isn't necessary for other players to hear about said person's bad behavior. I'm sure there were other people in your group. You will group with other people in the future. The other people in your group will group with other people in the future. Word of mouth tends to be pretty powerful in this game.

[Faldeney]

I understand your view, but I feel like out of all the players. If I said something in /ooc. (which I haven't) It would only bring flame and heat back to my name. and why should I suffer for trying to warn other people and just seek justice. It might just make it harder for me to find groups if I /ooc'd. I would rather just not group with the person again than to bring flame back to me.

Mainly, because I don't have 100% proof that the player didn't kill the mob again. The selling happened 8 hours after. Except I know the player never put the item on after winning the item. Logged without putting it on (an hour or so after the roll happened). the player also suicide gated to bind after group, so they would have had to run all that way back to the monster. If it was need, they would have put the item on when he got it. But the possibility is there that they logged on, immediately got a group who stated they were killing the same thing, and so they delayed putting it on. Put the item on their box after they killed and had 2. Possible, but not likely

Players can link what they are replacing or group leader can use fomelo if you are concerned about it in the future.

Btw, I think that Allielyn meant that you could petition it, not that you should out him in /ooc.

Fald

[Mumpkins]

I remember reading a thread about macroing a little while ago but for some reason I can't find it now - could someone clarify if a macro that spams mining or fishing is legal if I am ATTENDED? Or do I have to literally press the button?

On a side note, if it is legal, does anyone know of a program that will do it? :P or how to make autohotkey work with EQ?

[Nwaij]

I remember reading a thread about macroing a little while ago but for some reason I can't find it now - could someone clarify if a macro that spams mining or fishing is legal if I am ATTENDED? Or do I have to literally press the button?

On a side note, if it is legal, does anyone know of a program that will do it? :P or how to make autohotkey work with EQ?

Attended macroing is legal, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT EMPLOY AN 3rd PARTY PROGRAM. So using ingame social macros is fine as long as you are looking at your screen ever so often, using 3rd party programs will get you banned faster then you can say "Wow thats an awesome tool there!".

[Mumpkins]

Attended macroing is legal, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT EMPLOY AN 3rd PARTY PROGRAM. So using ingame social macros is fine as long as you are looking at your screen ever so often, using 3rd party programs will get you banned faster then you can say "Wow thats an awesome tool there!".

is there a way to macro mining with in-game tools? or fishing for more than 5 clicks?

and no other proggies at all? not even like a G15 keyboard macro that hits "1" every 30 seconds? the passcode thingie would keep me from going afk would it not?

[Tarutao]

No.
No.
No.
No.
I would hope it would, but that's a hypothetical situation anyway. It's not allowed.

(edit: woops, forgot to include a "No." to answer the fourth question)

[Mumpkins]

No.
No.
No.
No.
I would hope it would, but that's a hypothetical situation anyway. It's not allowed.

(edit: woops, forgot to include a "No." to answer the fourth question)

can I build a tiny little robot and program it to spam the key?

[Tarutao]

Also no.

You need to press it.

[Notpit]

Tao, you are saying we cannot use the in-game social macro to attempt fishing five times?


Edit: yes I know you said No a hundred times... sorry to be dense but this would be a big change.

[Nwaij]

Tao, you are saying we cannot use the in-game social macro to attempt fishing five times?


Edit: yes I know you said No a hundred times... sorry to be dense but this would be a big change.

re-read to what he said no.

[sugna024]

I got banned without warning. I believe it was probably for my name, which didn't explicitly violate the naming rules but may have been seen as offensive. How do I appeal the ban?

[callius9]

I have a somewhat peculiar question.

I played SoD years ago and in that time I made a froglock wizard. I would like to reuse the name I used for that character, unfortunately I'm not sure which account it was under (and none of the e-mail addresses I have used in the period between then and now come up with any accounts, save my current one).

I presume this isn't really something which warrants a full character restore, but is there any way I could get the old character name scrubbed from the game so I can reuse it?

[lynnettell]

In game macros are acceptable. There is not that option for mining (hate to those that made it so, but I still love you). So, if you use the macro posted on Wiki, you're fine. If you use anything else, like cute keyboard, 3rd party programs, etc., methinks you won't be playing here any longer.

[lynnettell]

I got banned without warning. I believe it was probably for my name, which didn't explicitly violate the naming rules but may have been seen as offensive. How do I appeal the ban?

Read the forums you're posting in. If you got banned for a name, you were a complete & utter idiot and had something that was so vilely offensive they don't want you. If not, then read the forum on ban appeals.

[Tarutao]

This thread is for questions about policy. Stay on topic.

[Allielyn]

I have a somewhat peculiar question.

I played SoD years ago and in that time I made a froglock wizard. I would like to reuse the name I used for that character, unfortunately I'm not sure which account it was under (and none of the e-mail addresses I have used in the period between then and now come up with any accounts, save my current one).

I presume this isn't really something which warrants a full character restore, but is there any way I could get the old character name scrubbed from the game so I can reuse it?

Nope, we do not scrub old names, no matter how long the old player hasn't been around, etc. Your only options there are to either a) try and recover the account; or b) choose a new name.

[Allielyn]

Also since there still seems to be some confusion: In game macros are acceptable.

This. These are the only macros or macroish things we accept. No keyboard binds, no 3rd party programs (building it yourself is a 3rd party program), no joystick commands, nothing else. Only the in-game macros, and those only work on a few of the tradeskills. And you have to be at your computer, even using these macros.

[Renshu]

the 2/3 rule needs to be looked at. It has been stated that guilds cannot do a wing unless they are flagged for it, even if 2/3 of the guild has done it in other guilds etc. So like if you haven't killed melamar as a guild u cannot do farhags.

How to get around? Get enough peeps that have the flag, box in a couple non guilded toons and call it a PICK UP RAID! By this, you never have to get the appropriate flags for your guild. Def not within the spirit of the rules, and very shady IMO.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2484/shadyshit.png

This really needs to be addressed.

[Wesell]

Here's the post that outlines what happens in this type of situation. A guild can bypass content as long as all or most of the members are keyed. Doesn't sound like the rule was meant to allow a guild to skip killing a flag mob on their own tier.

If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

My personal take on keying is that it should go away entirely. There is a ton of content that doesn't require keying and the only time it's really comes up is when a mob that drops excessively good loot for it's difficulty is hidden behind a "door" that requires a key from a more difficult mob.

[Renshu]

Originally Posted by Allielyn View Post
If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

OK so you are supposed to flag your guild for on tier content. Even if you have some members that came from other guilds that have the flag etc. With the 2/3 rule, you can box in a couple flagged not guild toons and call it a pug. This effectively is content skipping IMO.

This could set a standard for all guilds to bend the rules on flagging, content skipping, etc.

We didnt go to farhags till we had all the flags. We didnt do the well till we had all the flags as a guild.

Did we have enough peeps like oum and shalt and thaf etc that had done it before?? Yes.

BUT we didn't box in a couple of rev, go to farhags and say "this is a pug, we meet 2/3 rule".

[toy878]

can you tell me how to use this server to play?

[Wesell]

OK so you are supposed to flag your guild for on tier content. Even if you have some members that came from other guilds that have the flag etc. With the 2/3 rule, you can box in a couple flagged not guild toons and call it a pug. This effectively is content skipping IMO.

Right - I guess the real question here is at what point do you cross the threshold from guild raiding to PUG. It's a question that has other implications e.g., one claim per guild.

[Tarutao]

The current precedent is that if you try to rebrand your guild raid as a pickup raid to use the 2/3 rule instead of the "the guild has done the prerequisite content" paradigm, that won't fly. This is a judgment call to be made by the GM handling the petition/situation at the time.

Re-tagging characters to be "in the guild" and trying to pursue some kind of "past that tier" argument is nothing short of trying to skirt the rules and deceive staff.

[Tyvec-a-tron]

This policy is basically a sort of loose structure, with the 2/3 rule being implemented but people bypassing it a number of different ways. I mean, this goes back to pickup raids and logging random chars in which begs the question of whether or not a person or guild is flagged. I would tend to agree, it could use clarification.

[shaltang]

I would like some official word concerning this issue. The loop holes that are forming everyday to bypass the rules is getting extremely out of hand.

[Renshu]

A good solution would be to scrap the 2/3 rule and make it so EVERY guild in a PU raid has to be flagged.

Example (I'm throwing out random guild names so don't look into it): Ethereal and Amicii could raid Farhags. 6 Ethereal and 4 Iratus and 2 Bane and 6 PR could not because Iratus is not flagged (Even if every actual toon has the flag).

This solves a number of problems, like the issue that happened today. (12 Iratus with like 2 exo and 1 w/e other guild but meeting the 2/3 rule [I can't remember the exact numbers]) It also makes guilds have to work together and progress together to earn their loot, etc.

It also solves other problems like (remember random guild names here) 12 Chaotic Winds and 6 Moontree going to Upper Thaz.

[Allielyn]

If every single one of your mains are flagged, then you don't need to re-do the content. It wouldn't make sense for us to force overgeared guilds to go back and re-do GotSS just to do their IP or IS content in prison. But, if your guild is on the threshold, and 2/3 have keys but you're a new guild, then your guild, as an entity, needs to do the content that gets you into the places you're raiding.

A little bit of common sense here goes a long way. Obviously we don't want to create congestion in tiers 3-5 when a new guild forms with many tier 7-8 players. But those players really should do any tier 6/7 flagging if they want to do tier 7/8 content.

To be honest, this still looks incredibly clear to me.

What I read in the last 5 posts or so is either some guild that got nailed for trying to be as close to the edge of the rules as possible coming in here to 'clarify'; or some guild that lost a claim to a guild trying to be as close to the edge of the rules as possible.

If you want to be safe, then stick with the clear intent and spirit of the rules, and don't use keys you didn't earn to bypass content you can't do. It's pretty clear that bringing in 6 [Guild A] members, 2 of which are flagged, and having them each bot a [Guild B] member, each of which is flagged, for a total of 8 flagged members in a 12 person "pick-up" raid, is skirting the line of appropriate flagging.

While it is generally not practical for us to police this kind of thing in every instance, be aware that when we see it (or when it's reported to us) we will distribute jail time and revoked loot to the guild and raid leadership of the offending guild, as well as any characters who are whored out in this manner. This goes for any shady min-maxing.

The rule will quite intentionally remain as-is for now. In some cases, clarifying rules with exactness just gives players a more clear path on how to violate the spirit of them.

Think of this like the Don't-be-a-jerk rule. You *might* get away with it, once or twice. After that, it's jail time and a rap sheet. (Yes, we keep logs).

[Wesell]

I don't think you've addressed the issue that needs clarification. The question that underlies Renshu's clarification request is: Can a raid that consists of 80% members of a single guild be considered a PUG?

The issue does genuinely need clarification; both CW and Ethereal thought that the raid in question could be easily classified as a guild raid, but where told by a GM that it was a PUG.

Edit: I don't want the above post to be misconstrued as a request for an extremely specific definition of a PUG, but one that a reasonable person could use to distinguish between a guild raid with a few guests and a PUG would be nice.

[Tarutao]

She just said "no" to that.

[Wesell]

Please reconsider providing a limited definition.

[Magina]

Really easy solution: Don't allow PUG's in zones where you need flags or keys.

Just for reference: when AoE got booted from IP we had 5 different guilds there, granted, 13 of the toons were AoE (who as a guild, had not killed taesh despite that many individuals and characters in teh guild had.) I asked as we were being booted "what would constitue enough out of guild characters to make this a pickup raid" I was told that I can't even think about doing it, because it's violating the spirit of the rules.

[Ulandz]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
I would like to know if it is within the rule to completly dominate *every* single named in an entire
dungeon for *very* extended periods of time (currently the guy is there for 10 hours) and on
a daily bases by a single player (most likely boxxing).,so happening for weeks now in Crystal Caverns.
If not would it be appropriate to petition?

[Rorne]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
I would like to know if it is within the rule to completly dominate *every* single named in an entire
dungeon for *very* extended periods of time (currently the guy is there for 10 hours) and on
a daily bases by a single player (most likely boxxing).,so happening for weeks now in Crystal Caverns.
If not would it be appropriate to petition?

Sadly there are no limits to how little of a life a player can have

[Allielyn]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
I would like to know if it is within the rule to completly dominate *every* single named in an entire
dungeon for *very* extended periods of time (currently the guy is there for 10 hours) and on
a daily bases by a single player (most likely boxxing).,so happening for weeks now in Crystal Caverns.
If not would it be appropriate to petition?

Re: Named Mob rights for groups clearing an area
We don't recognize any camps in SoD, however we do recognize douchebaggery and we punish it. This one is as open-ended as your imagination can suggest. Don't be jerks. This includes (but is not limited to) the following behavior:

Triggering content scripts which you have no intention of attempting just to screw over other players, collecting event-necessary groundspawns which you have no intention of using (Hi MOTG), using higher level characters than the area is designed for to monopolize an unreasonable amount of mobs for the size of your group when there are others looking to hunt in the same area, excessive leapfrogging, pulling a named after another group kills its placeholder multiple times, etc

Without knowing the details, this is what it sounds to me like you are describing. If this continues to happen, feel free to petition. And as always, keep logs ON and take SS's of every interaction which you feel might lead to a petition.

[jewboo]

I was wondering how likely it is that i may be sued for playing SoD. has anyone been sued or fined for playin SoD? why or why not? i couldnt find the correct thread to post this to. thanks for reply, you can email me at gonja_bong@hotmail.com

[Slaariel]

0% likely, enjoy all your weed.

[jewboo]

will smoke one for you hardworking GM's. was hoping you might be able to explain how this isnt violating any copyright laws and such and stuff....i dunno.... tryin to get me sis to play and shes afraid of getting sued or something(she downloads music all the time off limewire,although she doesnt share files) >_< i was guessing you guys get away with doing such a great thing for the MMO world by simply taking everquest models and renaming everthing, changing all the stats and all... dunno if you make any of your own models....anyways was hoping you could elaborate ^_^

[robopirateninja]

we wrote all the stuff on the server you connect to, you paid for your copies of the files you use on your computer. everbody's happy

[sliderule]

anyone caught parsing the logs/farming the database/whatever to create a searchable database of the listing system will be immediately and irrevocably banned.


Is opening eqlog.txt in notepad and using CTRL-F allowed?

Is text searching my web browser cache allowed? (Assume I grep to STDOUT and don't store the results.)

Neither of these actions creates anything, they act only on text data and output only text data which is never organized nor stored. Do these actions violate the rule?

Thanks in advance.

[Nwaij]

Is opening eqlog.txt in notepad and using CTRL-F allowed?
Log parsers are allowed. Since this is something you could do with a log parser with way less effort, I can not see a reason why it should not be allowed.

[sliderule]

Log parsers are allowed. Since this is something you could do with a log parser with way less effort, I can not see a reason why it should not be allowed.

I'm afraid that while log parsers are allowed, certain uses of a log parser are explicitly forbidden, namely using one


to create a searchable database of the listing system


I will wait for an official response to my questions.

[totillion]

So, your intent is to parse the logs by hand to create a giant, unorganized text file that you can search for listsold data.

You are saying you are going to:
1. turn on log
2. /cm listsold 25 (or whatever the max is)
3. /cm listview playername (for each playername)
4. rinse/repeat
5. add log file to your browser cache so you can ctrl-f it

I think the fact that your "database" is just a collection of logfile texts, doesn't make it legal. So, no, this doesn't sound like a good thing to do as it is just skirting the rule by questioning the definition of "creating a searchable database".

Just use http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/vendorlist/listinvdata.php. It is much faster, better and legal.

[sliderule]

So, your intent is to parse the logs by hand to create a giant, unorganized text file that you can search for listsold data.

You are saying you are going to:
1. turn on log
2. /cm listsold 25 (or whatever the max is)
3. /cm listview playername (for each playername)
4. rinse/repeat
5. add log file to your browser cache so you can ctrl-f it


I never said I was going to do anything, and your assumption is just white noise. It is clear that your process qualifies as scraping the listsold system (explicitly restricted), and I have no intention of doing so. I run a parser so I have the log on when I play. If I look at a couple of vendors, they will be in the log. I want to know if I'm even allowed to peek at the log file, assuming that I don't manipulate or store the data otherwise.

Step 5 doesn't even make sense -- why would I search in a web browser when I could do that in notepad, you know... like I mentioned? I ask about the browser cache because there is a vendor website, and I could text search the cache to see if anyone I have looked at is selling the thing I'm looking for.



I think the fact that your "database" is just a collection of logfile texts, doesn't make it legal. So, no, this doesn't sound like a good thing to do as it is just skirting the rule by questioning the definition of "creating a searchable database".


Easy tiger, I am not making a database. There is no "my database" as you so allege, any more than there is a database for any other player using the system completely as intended. I'm not intending to "skirt" any definition here -- the rule currently does not apply to these activities as it is written, although its intent may be to prevent them.

The problem is this: the data is there as text through ordinary usage of the system; am I allowed to perform a plain text search on it? Anyone that uses the vendor database with a caching web browser (all of them) is "creating a searchable database". So, everyone who visits the vendor website is guilty and should be banned. Same goes for anyone who ever has logging on and browsed listsold: the "database" now exists. You can't not create it, short of disabling your browser cache and disabling logging (the latter of which I already do when I browse -- at least until this question is answered.)


Just use http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/vendorlist/listinvdata.php. It is much faster, better and legal.

Yes, but after visiting the site, am I allowed to run a text search of my browser cache?

I'm not interested in the further opinion of players. I do not want this to devolve into speculation any further than it already has. I am asking the staff for an authoritative answer on two simple questions. Thanks.

[Tarutao]

We don't want:

(1) Any listing that involves a lot of listview spam. This causes unneeded load on the servers.

(2) Any listing other than personal private use that includes prices.

There's probably more, but using offline methods to view your personal browser cache from the "Listsold Portal" seem completely fine to me.

[sliderule]

Thanks for the response.

Re:
We don't want:
(2) Any listing other than personal private use that includes prices.

With respect to:

anyone caught parsing the logs/farming the database/whatever to create a searchable database of the listing system will be immediately and irrevocably banned.


This makes it seem like "a searchable database" means "a non-private database". Is it the disclosure of price information that is bannable, or is all private market recordkeeping off-limits?

[Tarutao]

You sound like you're looking for a loophole. Don't spam the system and don't turn it into the Bazaar. Don't put up full logs of the full "/cmd listsold NEXT" for people. The rules are intent-based not legalistic. Any loopholes you find aren't going to keep you safe if your intentions are malicious and/or Bazaar-esque.

[sliderule]

You sound like you're looking for a loophole. Don't spam the system and don't turn it into the Bazaar. Don't put up full logs of the full "/cmd listsold NEXT" for people. The rules are intent-based not legalistic. Any loopholes you find aren't going to keep you safe if your intentions are malicious and/or Bazaar-esque.

I'm not looking for a loophole: I just want to understand the rules so that I don't break them.

I don't know what Bazaar is, I never played live.

As I now understand it, the intent of the rule is to prevent database load (via spam / crawling), and prevent public disclosure of prices. It seems that a private database created without undue load is OK. Let me know if I'm off the mark.

Thanks again.

[Allielyn]

I'm not looking for a loophole: I just want to understand the rules so that I don't break them.

I don't know what Bazaar is, I never played live.

As I now understand it, the intent of the rule is to prevent database load (via spam / crawling), and prevent public disclosure of prices. It seems that a private database created without undue load is OK. Let me know if I'm off the mark.

Thanks again.

No. Making a private database with /log that you can search through with ctrl+F is not allowed, whether it creates undue load or not.

[sliderule]

No. Making a private database with /log that you can search through with ctrl+F is not allowed, whether it creates undue load or not.

Thanks for the clear response. :)

[kmenex]

Question:

Do you guys save the chat logs for the server? if so, for how long?
Also, it does associate the name, the chat text and time stamp?

I am curios how long simply because i had this fantasy of some computer analyzing the text data and finding trends or something... mehh it's those political science people and the linguistics and sociology people mostly, they have been whispering in my head.

[Allielyn]

We are unable to confirm or deny the possible existence of any chat logs which may or may not be compiled for the server. =D

[Dimmi]

An honest question: Can the policy regarding lower level alts being in raids and t-maps be reconsidered?

I don't believe that loot rights on a raid should be limited to "65 only" for several reasons.
-What's the difference between killing a mob with 16 lvl 65 toons and rotting a loot, or killing a mob with 16 lvl 65 toons and 2 less than 65 toons, and not rotting loot?

-Raid loot almost all has a lvl reccomendation on it, rendering it less effective than other obtainable loot for which the toons meet the lvl rec, so it doesn't give any kind of unfair advantage to lower lvl toons.

-Nobody is going to let some random lvl 12 sit in on a Thaz 1 raid and scoop loot unless they are boxing something making a contribution.

-The rule itself kinda makes me scratch my head as to intent/purpose. A level 1 toon is just as useful on some raids as a brand new level 65. If there's no tier-range cut-off, a level-range cut-off doesn't seem appropriate either.

-The only real benefit to alt-gearing on raids in this fashion would be that you wouldn't have to go back and do it later after your toon hits 65. Revamping this rule would open up the time-frame for gearing so you can do it at a more leisurely and enjoyable pace. (Oh man, crap, warrior wrist is gonna rot on porlint, anyone got an alt to scoop it? I do, but he's only level 64, and we'd all get jailed. This is tragic.)

-Gearing scummy alts in raids is a time-honored SoD tradition. All joking aside though, this rule is painful. I miss the good old days when we'd be burning vah maps or doing maps for quest pieces or cyzaine's halloween quest, fully knowing that the loot is going to rot...then we would just /who the map's zone, and Oh hey! There's a mage here, so XXXX won't rot!....nope, sorry he's level 4. It used to make new players' day when they'd get to scoop some awesome random rot loot. It doesn't hurt the game any, and it's a good chance for guilds to give something back to the community. Lotta <DB> wouldn't get to see some pretty cool content and phats if it wasn't for scumming into a raid they had no business being in.

-Removing this rule would also increase player interaction, I say this because I feel it will come up. I guarentee loot is rotted before random 65s (who are probably more detrimental to the raid fight than the lvl 8 who will sit in the corner like a good boy) are invited to loot it. Most of the people I know would rather give that rotting Flamestrike Mace to some random lvl 3 warrior than some random 65 whatever...it's just the way we roll!

I've probably missed several points here, and I hope people will post and fill them in as they come to them. But tl;dr - can we please remove the no scummy alts/random people rule? Or if not, can we please justify it?

[Tarutao]

People would scam their level 1 alts into tier 8+ raids. It happened before. It'd happen again.

The line has to be drawn somewhere or not at all. You could consider "just need level 65" to be a really lenient compromise.

That paragraph about this "time-honored tradition" is something you recall with fond nostalgia. Is there something genuinely special about those times some random noob gets some item they may never replace during an event they weren't able to fully appreciate? Yes, but those times are just eclipsed by "oh man, loading my level 12 fishbot to get that gear for my Fomelo e-peen" occurances.

I suppose some clarification for the specific case of Tmaps may be in order, though.

[Dimmi]

Is scamming a level 1 into a tier 8+ raid really that bad though? I mean, they would get better stats from cloth headpants by 500% =\

Even the lvl 12 fishbot with fomelo e-peen....I don't see anything detrimental there. I don't see any exploitation or game-breaking gear-ups going on there. Just someone enjoying the game in their own lil way.

So far the only reason for the rule I've seen is, in essence, just to be a wet blanket. Especially considering it's still fine to take a lvl 1 to a 65 xp zone or dungeon and loot pristines or soak xp. =(

[Luccian]

For what its worth I can completely agree with this. I remember some of my best guild times were when Dimmi was in Iron Monkey Tribe ( later renamed Scourge ) with me, and were taking fresh 65 it close to it, and busting out 10+ tmaps a night just to gear up members, knowing myself, him, a few.kthers woyld mot benefit from this at all aside from interaction with guild members.

I don't see how raiding should be much different. If the raid can be managed with 14 characters, and some friends of the other members/ alts want to grab some rots it should be fine. The purpose is to work together and take out the target, enjoy the interaction with friends, etc.. A requirement on who must be there, how geared he should be, hpw experienced he is shouldn't be a limiting factor for anyone if someone is willing to pick up his slack ( even if it means a lvl 8 human wizard picking the lack of dps drunken dimmi puts out :P ).

[Tarutao]

it's still fine to take a lvl 1 to a 65 xp zone or dungeon and loot pristines

No, this is NOT okay.

[Allielyn]

Especially considering it's still fine to take a lvl 1 to a 65 xp zone or dungeon and loot pristines or soak xp. =(



Out-of-Raid looting

This rule applies to normal targets as well; camping your alt while you duo a named so your alt can get 'pristine' droppables or 'no drop' items will get your items revoked and your player may be banned.

**Actively helping means your character is there, with the rest of the raid, doing the raid thing with the raid target. We have discretion on ruling here though, so don't think we will accept that your level 30 alt bard in your Yashira raid is 'actively contributing'. Other than that, being on the target's aggro list is a fair clarification and may be considered among other factors.

I'm surprised you missed this given it has been posted for more than a year. This is one of those rules which could end up with a banning at your level (read: at the point where you have been around long enough to *KNOW* better and be found in clear contempt of the rules.)

[Thade]

he never said anything about having the alt camped O_o

[Magina]

he never said anything about having the alt camped O_o

I actually had a question about this. While I see the intention here, is it alright to have an alt camped out and to solo (read: 1 character) a mob then log the alt in to loot something? While this is ver nit picky I know, I think that the policy as it stands favors those who can 2 box if this isn't allowed. For clarifaction i'm talking about a level 65 character being camped out.

[Tarutao]

To the above two posts: "Actively helping". Having your level 3 bard play Jaxan's Jig o' Vigor doesn't count and allow him to loot a pristine Token of Living Lava.

The spirit of the [NO DROP] and [PRISTINE] code is not difficult to understand.

[AbstractV]

I didn't know SoD changed their rules on buying/selling accounts and items at all? When did this happen, as I've petitioned in game and a DM must have read it because it didn't sit in waiting queue long, and since I couldn't get an answer in game perhaps someone would like to answer me here.

But I stumbled across this website for selling game accounts and such, www.realpoor.com

There are people listing character names and accounts on there.. why aren't all these people banned outright?

Now I know you guys know, I'm not stupid and neither are you.

So.. answers hmm?

[robopirateninja]

Can you post a link to the listing you're talking about? I am not familiar with that site but with searches for "shards of dalaya" "dalaya" and "sod" I see a single thread, closed, four years old, wherein a person asks to buy a char and is told it's not allowed.

You can't sell characters or accounts. Period. For IRL money or platinum or sexual favors. I don't know if there is an official ruling on selling character names, but I would lean towards no. You can only sell in-game items for in-game money.

When we catch you, we will ban the sold account, and probably any additional accounts associated with both the buyer and the seller.

[AbstractV]

Thank you for the swift reply, I would continue to watch other sites such as this periodically.
I know what I saw, but upon running a search for "SoD or Dalaya" the only posts I see are the ones you mentioned in the last post. I hate to think someone could react that quickly, maybe its just bad luck or timing on my part :[

Well thank you once again for the speedy response. I'll be sure to PM any further details I uncover rather than post openly.

[Magina]

This question is in response to a topic in the raid policty thread: (sorry for the bad quoting!)

"18 characters and only 18 characters-

You may have only 18 characters actively benefiting a raid at any time.

After a wipe, you may NOT log in a 19th person to fill a class role that is not present on your raid. I.E. No logging in a bot mage to DS/mod rod while you rebuff. Swapping in a mage and swapping him back out afterwards is not a clever way to get around this. This also means logging in a 19th person to rez the raid is disallowed.

You may have more than 18 people in the zone ONLY IF they are coming to replace someone that is leaving, and the above rule still applies.

Raid leaders and guild officers this is your responsibility to manage, so it will be you that is punished if this policy is broken."

My question is this. If you are in normal raid zone, and have 13 chars in the raid, is it okay to port up a 14th char to buff your raid, then port him out?

[misin]

My question: If you have cleared to a boss in a 6-man raid zone and wipe to him, is it ok to FD through the zone to do a corpse recovery and try again?

Example: We clear our way to baphomet in emberflow. We engage him. We wipe. Instead of reclearing, are we allowed to send in a monk or SK with a res pot or a necromancer or even a rogue maybe (anyone who can get here and get people resed) so that we can try the mob once again?

[Tarutao]

Short version: 'No, not okay'.

Long version: This question is one about 6-man content. As such, it is subject to the raid rules. If you had a similar situation in a raid, you would have to kill the raid trash. Granted, this situation would generally only occur if you were attempting to kill a raid mob that you had cleared to days earlier, but it would be the ruling for such a situation. It's part of the "Content Skipping" clause.

If you managed to camp a cleric or FD a necro or escape a rogue with a resurrection urn, feel free to ressurect your group that way. This would instead qualify as "not skipping content".

If someone did not like this ruling, the obvious next step would be to mention that the Plane of Earth is exempt from this clause and request the same treatment for their 6man zone of choice. While it is up for debate, the current stand is that this situation is one of the perils of Emberflow and Haegra Malath (and other 6man content... kinda... or not really applicable for either side).

[Tarutao]

ATTENTION -- THERE HAS BEEN A POLICY CHANGE

Out-of-Raid looting
Rewarding loot to players who were camped out or otherwise disengaged during a fight is against the raid rules. Doing so will get your raid leader and guild officers/leaders jailed and/or banned, as well as the character who got loot. This extends to giving level 65 players looting rights from adept mobs. Note that this policy applies even if the raid is the correct size, IE an 18 man raid with one character camped out cannot give loot to the camped (or otherwise disengaged) character. If you want loot, you must be actively assisting the raid during the kill of the mob you want loot from, on the character you want loot on.

This rule applies to normal targets as well; camping your alt while you duo a named so your alt can get 'pristine' droppables or 'no drop' items will get your items revoked and your player may be banned.

**Actively helping means your character is there, with the rest of the raid, doing the raid thing with the raid target. We have discretion on ruling here though, so don't think we will accept that your level 30 alt bard in your Yashira raid is 'actively contributing'. Other than that, being on the target's aggro list is a fair clarification and may be considered among other factors.

The part clarifying the meaning of "actively helping" has now been changed slightly. With the implementation of a coding solution to restrict the looting of corpses of NPCs more than 15 levels higher than you, the "discretion" part is in most situations unnecessary. This does mean that level 55 characters are allowed on raids of level 70 mobs.

There are some raid encounters in-game wherein the loot rewards are dropped from a lower level NPC box rather than the named mob. This does NOT mean that your level 1 Rabb the Rat alt is allowed loot from the box. The level of the raid mob itself is what is to be taken into consideration.

Note: this policy change does NOT change the looting rights for Treasure Maps whatsoever.

[purifiedbyfire7]

I think this change to the policy is appropriate.

[Draeos]

Short version: 'No, not okay'.

Long version: This question is one about 6-man content. As such, it is subject to the raid rules. If you had a similar situation in a raid, you would have to kill the raid trash. Granted, this situation would generally only occur if you were attempting to kill a raid mob that you had cleared to days earlier, but it would be the ruling for such a situation. It's part of the "Content Skipping" clause.

If you managed to camp a cleric or FD a necro or escape a rogue with a resurrection urn, feel free to ressurect your group that way. This would instead qualify as "not skipping content".

If someone did not like this ruling, the obvious next step would be to mention that the Plane of Earth is exempt from this clause and request the same treatment for their 6man zone of choice. While it is up for debate, the current stand is that this situation is one of the perils of Emberflow and Haegra Malath (and other 6man content... kinda... or not really applicable for either side).

Is it still content skipping if the rogue can sneak/hide to the corpses? not doing anything shaddy just hiting sneak and hide and walking up to the corpses. ( My thought on this was if you can do it its part of the zone design and an OK thing to do )

[Tarutao]

Unless there's something I'm missing, then I'd qualify that as "yes, that's okay" under the same ruling as using invisibility or hugging walls.

[misin]

The idea i had was that resing a boss wipe through any means is not content skipping as long as you've already killed all the content on that run.

[Slagar]

nevermind!

[Magina]

Is there any chance we could either have:

1. the other older policy questoin thread brought back

or

2. it's relevant posts merged into this thread?

There were a lot of good clarificaions on general policy in there which are fun to reference.

[Tarutao]

Question: With the actively participating ruling a few months ago, where do TMaps stand in relation to level looting limits?

Answer: TMaps above simple can only be looted by characters of level 55 or higher.

The OP has been edited to include this information.

[JeffroCakes]

With the recent addition of 1 mana, out of combat buffing for raids, where do adept raids stand? Since an only 12 people can engage, would a thirteenth be permitted to join the raid for the low mana buffing as long as they leave the raid before engage?

[Tarutao]

No.

[Nwaij]

Okay, now you got me confused Taru. How does Claw Commander Era`velu in Citadel of the Claw and Supreme Ritualist Ofgats in Bloodied Quarry - Only the bosses themselves are considered "6 man content", so there are no restrictions from rezz/buff bots or even for using a full 18-man raid to clear the mobs in front of the boss himself. and the no 13th for adept buffing go along? Last time I checked, adepts were 12man mobs standing/roaming around in the middle of areas with no participation limits, just like the 2 mobs named above.

And if the adept hunters claimed that they "coincidently gathered 13 people in this random location and decided to buff", and then one of them disbanded, how would that be any different then7+ people killing the golems near CC "just because it is a nice chunk of XP", then dropping one and engage CC?

[Tarutao]

That's an excellent argument for changing the ruling, Nwaij. I will consider it earnestly.

As the rules stand now, the extension of the rules and spirit of the rules leaves the ruling at "no". Check back in a day or two for a final ruling.

[JeffroCakes]

The ruling wouldn't even need to be changed if the raid member requirement was dropped to around 10 or so. It's high enough to prevent groups from logging on a few extra people to take advantage of change--assuming that would be within the rules--and low enough to let daring adept raiders make and attempt with less than max participants. I'm just hoping for a way for adept raids to get to use the time saving benefit of the 1 mana buffs. I was rather disappointed when I saw the raid member requirement was 13+ since it's such an awesome change.

[jew_nose_it]

Question: With the actively participating ruling a few months ago, where do TMaps stand in relation to level looting limits?

Answer: TMaps above simple can only be looted by characters of level 55 or higher.

The OP has been edited to include this information.

Last night, I did some ED maps and wanted to bring my lvl 60 warrior along. I was told that only 65s are allowed on D and greater difficulty maps. However I was under the impression that all non simple maps were lvl 60 and above.

Could you please True/False these statements for me Tao. I'm going to be leveling my cleric from 55 to 65 as well and I'd like to know what is and isn't OK.

It is OK to bring lvl 55-60 toons to Cmal 1.0-3.2

It is OK to bring lvl 60-64 toons to Cmal 1.0-3.2

It is OK to bring lvl 55-59 toons on E-VD maps.

It is OK to bring non lvl 65 toons on ED maps.

It is OK to bring lvl 60-64 toons on raids assuming they actively contribute.

Thanks.

[Tarutao]

In all cases listed, you can, but you must actively contribute. Keeping that character just out of AoE range and not actively doing something is not okay. If you are unsure of whether it is active contribution, a non-official rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if what you are doing could be done with the screen minimized. I'd keep an eye out for those rare mobs that are over level 70 (Eighth Arm of Terror, etc.) if you are bringing a level 55 character, though.

No, I won't provide a list of mobs over level 70. If you have to ask if a mob is over level 70, you shouldn't be scumming your level 55 into the encounter.

[jew_nose_it]

Right so him auto attacking mobs and shielding the tank when applicable would be contributing. Thanks for the clarification.

[JeffroCakes]

Have you considered Nwaij's comments on my adept question?

After reading my post again, I feel I should clarify one point. The 13th member wouldn't be buffing anyone. They would just be there for the 1 mana buff bonus. I completely see the reason behind forbidding a 13th person joining, buffing others, then leaving (example: there's no beastlord in the 12-man raid and one joins--making it 13-- then casts Spiritual Light and Wrath of the Beast before leaving). I don't see the problem with a 13th member just sitting there for the 1 mana buffs since it's just a time saving measure. But, you may know or see something that I don't.

[Allielyn]

it's just a time saving measure.

That actually counts as an advantage, so the answer would be no, not allowed.

[Tarutao]

Allielyn's right. (Imagine that, the current and former Lead GMs having the same opinion...)

That said, if this is something you really, really want, your best course of action would be a Suggestions and Requests thread about turning that "raid of 13 or more" requirement down to "raid of 12 or more".

I don't know the reasoning behind making it 13+ characters in the raid, but it might involve how it would affect 12-man content (like The Abyss), so that would need to be addressed.

To the original question by JeffroCakes, though, the answer is "sorry, no".

[JeffroCakes]

I don't know the reasoning behind making it 13+ characters in the raid, but it might involve how it would affect 12-man content (like The Abyss), so that would need to be addressed.

Being a perpetual 55-60 player, that is something that never crossed my mind. I'd like it to work with adept raids, but not bad enough to cause more balancing work for the staff. You bust your butts hard enough as it is.

[Draeos]

couple flagging questions.

Tao edit: False statement within question removed. The question involved the ideas of keys for Sanctum/Abyss and pre-requisite content for Sanctum/Abyss, but it failed to consider them separately. The question then involved the situation of the keyed character de-guilding

[Tarutao]

The question is whether (1) the guild as a guild did the pre-requisite content and (2) someone in the raid was able to key them in, if such a key was necessary

When dealing with guild re-form, there is some amount of judgment call to be made on whether the guild is a new guild or the same guild. This is in almost every case a very obvious call. In the case of a merging of guilds, anything all guilds merging had completed counts for the new guild.

One player in the guild having a key doesn't "key the guild". Either the guild did it as a guild or they didn't. Example: <Fair-Weather Friends> was disallowed from raiding Sanctum since they were a merger guild of <Twilight Underground> and <Iratus Lepus>, and <Iratus Lepus> had not done the content required to access Sanctum.

Once the guild has done the content as a guild that is required for access, they can use whosever key to access it for their guild raids (as long as that keying characters doesn't constitute a 19th character and break the 18-man raid rules).

Of course, if the guild doesn't have anyone in the raid that can physically get them in (see: key), then that collection of 18 characters can't do it. Getting multiple keys is a good idea in general, anyway.

[oozu1234]

i know Tarutao atleast has been cracking down hardcore on 2/3 keyed rules. anyways... im in the process of forming a guild. im using Oozu and Miffane (oozu tagged, miffane is not) sometimes we use cleya aswell also not tagged. we've been doing alot of tier 2/3 but occasionally we like to jump into 5/6 because no lower tier stuff is up (we are a night time guild so we are the clean up crew sadly)

so anyways... my concerns is say prison is up. OP i think is the begging. you would have to be keyed as a guild by killing GotSS to get into prison. so say i round up 15 guildies (with miff and cleya) we anihlate GotSS get keys. but there is no way we could possibly have killed GotSS without miffane or cleya (this is an example) now since miffane and cleya arent tagged as The Night Crew. would this be considered a +1 for guild. (we can now go raid prison) or would every raid we do with miffane and cleya be considered a pug and we would have to follow under the 2/3 rule for anything requiring a key?

i know this topic has been discussed many a time... but i dont think this area has ever been covered. and i definatley dont want to be responsible for getting ringers jailed and what not, or guildies also jailed. so let me know ill be checking in. thanks!

[Silosobi]

Am I allowed to offer platinum for a mob's spawntimer (or for people to track it for me?)

e.g.

/ooc Paying 10k for a timer on x mob.

or

/ooc Paying 10k if anyone lets me know when x mob is up before anyone else kills it.


Also wondering if there is any official ruling on whether you can pay people to do quests for you. Obviously paying for a specific no drop item for a quest that you cant otherwise get is pretty clearly illegal/dubious, but other quests that don't involve no-drops, or where the no-drops aren't anything that is out of the player's reach, seems more along the lines of just paying for someones time, which is legal as far as I know.

I've seen this kind off transaction happen before and I even think gm/devs were aware of it, at the time I didn't even consider it being illegal.

Maybe this is just one of those issues where no ruling can be made since its probably okay in some situations and not okay in others.

[Tarutao]

The spawn timer thing -- yes. Go nuts.

The quest thing -- it really boils down to whether or not it constitutes (1) selling NO DROP items (2) other specifically prohibited things like getting high level quest flags for a character that can't achieve "actively participating". If those are unbroken, there is no rule against it.

[Silosobi]

So, to clarify:

If a quest involves looting any no drop items you cant pay someone to do it for you.

If a quest reward is a no drop item you cant pay someone to do it for you.

Are both those statements true (even when the no-drop items are mundane things you could easily farm yourself if you put in the time)

[Tarutao]

Correct.

Correct.

Yes (still yes).

[toreiove]

I'd admit to not having read every single post in this thread recently, but I did notice something of a discrepancy in two policy threads.

From: http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showpost.php?p=177006&postcount=1 (Policy Questions Thread - Post 1)

Re: Claiming a Raid Zone
Raid Zones are claimed by either 12- in zone (or area, where applicable) or "capable force". The latter must be proved by active clearing - and not just active when the GMs are looking after a petition has been put in. This rule may be modified by specific zone rules (ie Tower of Tarhyl may have multiple modes of clearing to/in a wing from different directions) and GMs may use their best discretion in ruling. (The alternative? Both your raids can sit on their hands for two hours while we nitpick. Yeah, I didn't think you wanted that either.)

Obviously "capable force" is subjective. However it also mentions of a number of 12 being required.

However, then from: http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=17777 (Raid Encounter and 6 Man Content Rules)

Right of Way-

To claim a wing/zone/encounter, you need 6 people present. This claim is invalidated if you have done nothing in the wing/zone/encounter, and continue to do nothing for 30 minutes or more from the time a dispute occurs. A single guild may not lay claim on more than one wing/zone/encounter at a time (i.e. can't have 6 claiming lower thaz water and 6 claiming lower thaz earth at the same time). Abuse of this rule to 'squat' with 6 players while you wait for 2 hours for the rest of your guild to log on will result in jailtime.

These two policies sound different from a certain point of view, but I believe can also be seen as contradictory. Might an answer be gleaned from our admin overlords?

[Tarutao]

The first quote is outdated policy. I'll fix that.

The "capable force" clause was replaced with the second quote, but having a capable force to do the content you are claiming before the 30 minute post-dispute timer runs out is required. Most of the time, that is shown by results (actually killing things), but a wipe by a force that isn't clearly outclassed by the content they are trying to claim is the gray area. This is a judgment call by the GM handling the dispute, and whether or not the original claim (which is being disputed) has a capable force is the judgment call.

[cpoff]

Recently people have been spouting off that ever mentioning anything ever, ever, in response to anything said in auction ever is magically considered harassment. I'd like to get some clarification on this rule(rule #9 seen here: http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=22395), as it recently spawned a great deal of argument. I had assumed that it meant you couldn't harass people about things, as was already a rule.
An example of what was considered harassment by some was someone auctioning a thing for a price, then someone mentioning that it went for less a previous day.

[Mazi]

(Here's a response until you can get something more official.)

Recently people have been spouting off that ever mentioning anything ever, ever, in response to anything said in auction ever is magically considered harassment. I'd like to get some clarification on this rule(rule #9 seen here: http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/showthread.php?t=22395), as it recently spawned a great deal of argument. I had assumed that it meant you couldn't harass people about things, as was already a rule.
An example of what was considered harassment by some was someone auctioning a thing for a price, then someone mentioning that it went for less a previous day.

It's usually a pretty simple rule. Refrain from hassling a player selling an item.

If someone wants to auction a Mithril Short Sword for 1500pp, they may do so.

It doesn't matter if you noticed it went for less a previous day, because they're free to sell the item for their desired price. It's up to the buyer to discern fair trades. Otherwise you're only disrupting public channels.

[cpoff]

I personally don't find any room for confusion in this rule. A single statement about a price being different at some point seems a far cry from harassment to me, but apparently some people do not see things this way.
The first I heard mention of this rule at all was very recent, but every time I've seen it mentioned it's been in response to singular innocuous comments. Apparently what is considered "harassment" needs spelled out, or people are just going to have to learn the hard way.

[Tarutao]

A single statement about a price being different at some point

This tends to be a matter of intent, and in many cases, taking it to public channels is just mean-spirited. At any rate, you want to make sure any staff members reading your comment don't see it as mean-spirited or an attack. Here's a couple of suggestions on how to handle several situations:

(1) Are you wanting to inform the seller of what others are selling that item for? Try doing it privately and politely via a /tell.

(2) Are you trying to dissuade a particular person from buying said item? Use a /tell.

(3) Are *you* selling that item for a lower price? Speak up, and enjoy the spirit of competition, but be prepared to get undercut out of spite.

(4) Do you have a friend selling the item for a lower price? Speak up, but be clear that you're advertising for a friend.

(5) Do you think the person is just price gouging? Say nothing. If all you have is "that's overpriced", then all you have is an attack on their auction.

[cpoff]

I can agree with all those points except the last one. Not everyone is going to know that price gouging is price gouging for a particular item if they are new or some such.
I basically think this rule should just be done away with since it is already covered by the "No Harassment" rule, and it'll keep people from exploding over an issue which is (somewhat)arbitrarily given special attention.

[Silosobi]

Hey I have another question around this questing business.

What about paying for someone to get me a singular quest flag within a much larger quest.

e.g. Hey, I'm doing x quest with 10 parts. One of them is to kill 100 gnolls and I get flags for them. I dont mind everything else, but I really hate paying gnolls so I will pay you 100k to kill 100 gnolls for me and get the quest flag. The eventual reward for this quest IS a NO DROP item, but you are only paying for a part of it.

[bunnyavenger]

I was about to start playing again and was going to get some of my friends to join up as well and was wondering if its allowed to hunt using a 12 man raid in nonraid areas? In the past the rules on raid groups was phrased differently and now there isn't anything I could find about it. The plan was to just zerg through warrens -> warpstone -> kaladim etc with the 6 of us dual boxing for half the xp per kill but very little downtime to get the core of our guild leveled up together at once.

Would that be allowed or are preraid areas assumed to be 6man restriction?

[Tarutao]

I can agree with all those points except the last one. Not everyone is going to know that price gouging is price gouging for a particular item if they are new or some such.
I basically think this rule should just be done away with since it is already covered by the "No Harassment" rule, and it'll keep people from exploding over an issue which is (somewhat)arbitrarily given special attention.

It was added to the list because it became a problem. That's how the Minor Offenses list works.

Hey I have another question around this questing business.

What about paying for someone to get me a singular quest flag within a much larger quest.

e.g. Hey, I'm doing x quest with 10 parts. One of them is to kill 100 gnolls and I get flags for them. I dont mind everything else, but I really hate paying gnolls so I will pay you 100k to kill 100 gnolls for me and get the quest flag. The eventual reward for this quest IS a NO DROP item, but you are only paying for a part of it.

Now you're just going out of your way to look for a loophole. Stop that, unless you're trying to argue that every form of payment for anything needs to be eradicated since it could somehow be tied to some quest some day. Besides, you should feel bad for trying to pay people to do your quests and exp for you (not just you specifically, a general "you" for whomever to which this line of questioning applies)

I was about to start playing again and was going to get some of my friends to join up as well and was wondering if its allowed to hunt using a 12 man raid in nonraid areas? In the past the rules on raid groups was phrased differently and now there isn't anything I could find about it. The plan was to just zerg through warrens -> warpstone -> kaladim etc with the 6 of us dual boxing for half the xp per kill but very little downtime to get the core of our guild leveled up together at once.

Would that be allowed or are preraid areas assumed to be 6man restriction?

Only specified 6man dungeons and 6man content are restricted from taking more than 6 characters. If you want to take a raid of 18 people and do Citadel of the Claw (minus Claw Commander Era`Velu), go ahead. If I remember correctly, <Dragonkin> did that once.

[Cinn]

If you're going to make paying people to do quests on your character against the rules just make it against the rules. Trying to justify it with another rule about not paying for No Drop items which was very obviously made to prevent raiding guilds from selling raid slots and item loot rights is just silly.

I understand the need for most of these rules and having hard rules that you can just point to and say These Are The Rules is a good thing but I mean if you don't want people to do something just say Hey, New Rule, Don't Pay For Quests instead of hey look at this spiderweb of rules I have tied back to your question.

idk maybe it's just me.

[Silosobi]

I'm really not looking for a loophole...

It was prompted by the fact that I thought I wouldn't be able to log on at the time a certain mob was spawning to kill it and get a flag. If I lose the timer there is no telling when I will catch said mob again. I'd like to be able to pay one of my guildies/friends some $$$ to put in the time killing the mob for me, but I don't want to break any rules.

I agree with cinn and I realize that my question is hard to answer because based on the rules I know it does seem like a bit of a grey area, but I'm pretty paranoid about rules on this server after a couple instances where I was warned i could be banned for x action when I had no clue they would be against rules (one situation I was told it wasn't even a written rule...).

I really don't like that I have to post things like this but since those warnings I've been pretty paranoid about rules.

[Allielyn]

Wouldn't your friend just do this for you as a favor? Isn't that what friends are for? And if you want to 'repay' the favor by being nice and letting him keep loot (not split) from groups or something, because that's what friends do when they know a friend is saving up for a charm/item/tome, you could do that. And you don't have to keep track of time and money and paid up and balance settled because you're friends and you're just doing favors. Wouldn't that be nice?

The general rule in the past has been that if somebody (no matter who) is on your character doing legal things than any benefit your character receives is fine. So, we don't for instance remove exp from a character who gained exp while being boxed by a friend. We wouldn't remove a flag or loot received from a quest in the same way. But if you can manage to avoid the gray areas by *not* paying money for it that would be best.

[Dimmi]

In other words, find a nice friend/guildie to get your kill, then give him that 20k split from the last group you did with him for his charm fund, b/c you're pals, instead of giving him 20k to kill your mob!

In all seriousness though, some grey areas are probably left better off as grey areas, with the active staff on this server a lot of things that have been acceptable by community standards regardless of acceptability levels with individual staff interpretation of the rules, may be better handled on a case-by-case basis with a specific focus on intent of action. Did Solo pay Stever to do his Vah assassinations b/c Stever is a platinumwhoring baddie, or did Solo pay Stever to do his Vah assassinations b/c Solo hates camping the mob/has a job and can't make the timer/etc, and is a red-blooded American superhero who likes to give tangible and person-appropriate thank-you gifts/repayment for services as opposed to "Do this thing I hate for me and I'll uh....I'll owe ya one buddy!"

tl;dr: Puting too many specific instances in writing removes the individual judgement factor, and almost to a one, I have great faith in the individual judgements of our staffers. You also risk the rise of "loop-hole artists." Also Stever really is a platinum-whore, with a heart of gold(pieces) <3

[stever]

In other words, find a nice friend/guildie to get your kill, then give him that 20k split from the last group you did with him for his charm fund, b/c you're pals, instead of giving him 20k to kill your mob!

In all seriousness though, some grey areas are probably left better off as grey areas, with the active staff on this server a lot of things that have been acceptable by community standards regardless of acceptability levels with individual staff interpretation of the rules, may be better handled on a case-by-case basis with a specific focus on intent of action. Did Solo pay Stever to do his Vah assassinations b/c Stever is a platinumwhoring baddie, or did Solo pay Stever to do his Vah assassinations b/c Solo hates camping the mob/has a job and can't make the timer/etc, and is a red-blooded American superhero who likes to give tangible and person-appropriate thank-you gifts/repayment for services as opposed to "Do this thing I hate for me and I'll uh....I'll owe ya one buddy!"

tl;dr: Puting too many specific instances in writing removes the individual judgement factor, and almost to a one, I have great faith in the individual judgements of our staffers. You also risk the rise of "loop-hole artists." Also Stever really is a platinum-whore, with a heart of gold(pieces) <3

How in the world did I get dragged into this :(

[Dimmi]

You're just always on my mind

[Silosobi]

Well the aforementioned timer was due in the early morning hours when my friends all tend to be sleeping or at work, so to ask someone to help was really quite a burden and I'd love to be able to just say help me out here and ill help you out when your close to your charm but I really am paranoid about the rules.

Here is why...
I made a post about wizard runic 2 and then I went in-game and made a macro that basically suggested someone check out the thread and post their input in hopes that a broader response by the wizard community would prompt change. The name in the /tell I would just change whenever I ran by a random wizard i saw in town or just wizard names i recognised in /who all wiz.

Well I sent this to a staff members wizard alt and the next day they send me a tell saying that I was lucky I wasn't banned because sending tells like that is strictly against the rules "and is basically akin to the spam tells people send out trying to sell platinum for RL $". I asked where the rule was posted and they said it wasn't actually a posted rule because it was so obvious that it was bad.

That left me pretty shocked and confused as I had no concept I was doing anything wrong. I was also warned about being banned for a comment in LP, and that one I knew was dumb but never expected it could have any repercussions.

These situations as well as just the way I understand many rules to work have left me with a lot more concern about where exactly the line is drawn.

Its not at all that I think staff here does a bad job, our staff is absolutely amazing. Better than most pay games I have played, I just feel like there is a very strict by the books policy that might not be so reasonable in every situation.

Sorry to go so far off topic, but I thought some context might help explain why I'm seeming so anal about rules.

[Udeni]

Re: Skipping Content
ANY Mobs (raid or otherwise) which are static cannot be skipped (by training away, or CoTH summoning, corpse summoning and rezzing past, or any other means) without risking a fat ban. Content which is roaming and can be avoided by waiting may be skipped. Specific instances include collecting groundspawns for MoTG, which *must* be done by killing the mobs guarding the growndspawns and cannot be done by flopping a monk around, and also Inner Prison, where none of the mobs are designed to be 'skippable' with the exception of the Farg drop-down which may bypass some content from the long way around. Exception: you may invis and run past mobs which do not see invisibility.

Was chatting with somebody that was in a pofire PuR and they asked if they needed to climb the wall. Somebody replied with that's content skipping, so I decided to search the forums and I found nothing to say if it was or not. I can see it being content skipping if the guild hasn't killed mephitkalia or ambassador of hakim, but if they have and are down, I don't see how it is content skipping.

Also, another person said that there is a book stating that the one spot of the wall is the bouncer's "blind spot" and is actually in the lore that you can go through it.

So my question is, is climbing up the wall past the bouncer considered content skipping, or is it O.K. to do? If so, under what circumstances?

[megamanx]

Had a question was't sure where to post it but here been reading rules n forums n everything from my phone trying to learn stuff abt the server while i wait for my internet to get turned on in a few days so my question was if i borrowed a higher lvl char from a friend n grouped it with my new char n used it to get few no drop items like stuff for soulfire or sumthing of that sort is it againist the rules long as i bring both chars along ( my newbe n there char) just making sure dont wanna start out and bet in trouble. Sorry if there is a post alrdy using my phone to search n read stuff on the forrum is not the easyest.

[Tarutao]

The "Out-of-raid Looting" is basically what you need. You need to be actively contributing with the newbie character, and you need to be within 15 levels in order to loot.

[megamanx]

Ah ok ty

[oozu1234]

Im pretty sure 2/3 need to have all previous flags but i want to comfirm this. For ToT say the farhag or memphar wing. Does the 12 people need ALL prior flags ex: bloodfire talon djarr and lobby. Or could i take 12 people to farhags who have completed JUST memphar?

[Dimmi]

I'm 99% sure the answer will be:
In a pug situation, the 2/3 rule applies, including all wings up to the wing you wish to raid. If it is a guild raid and the guild has all the flags up to the wing you wish to raid, you may do so (presumably with new members who had not been there for the progression through the earlier parts of ToT)

[lynnettell]

**Actively helping means your character is there, with the rest of the raid, doing the raid thing with the raid target. In general, being on the target's aggro list is a fair clarification and being within the level range that allows you to loot the mob's corpse may be considered among other factors. There are some raid encounters in-game wherein the loot rewards are dropped from a lower level NPC box rather than the named mob. This does NOT mean that your level 1 Rabb the Rat alt is allowed loot from the box. The level of the raid mob itself is what is to be taken into consideration. To clarify this, Treasure Map chest higher than Simple can be looted by characters no lower than level 55.

So. Let's say, for instance, you have 16 people in raid, and someone runs up with 25% of the mob left, and just gets a raid invite (not in a group, just gets thrown a raid invite [that you can do during combat], not there on engage, but high enough to get the loot, and get on aggro list). Legal?

[oozu1234]

i would think if its like 50-75% prolly. but 25% im betting they will say no

[Dimmi]

Puting numbers on things is kinda like sleeping with your sister. Most of the time it really is an easy alternative that simplifies life, but! in certain instances, it's really just boxing yourself into a precedent you might live to regret.

This is an instance where I'd take a long hard look at the spirit of the rules if I were forced to make a judgement call...did the character joining the raid actively participate in killing the mob? Was their contribution meaningful enough to reward them with loot (rotting or not, would you as a raid leader be happy awarding that toon loot over another person in the raid who also hypothetically wants it?) Obviously puting a number on the mob's hp like 25% will ellicit an immediate taru-no...but then what happens next time when it's 30? well what about 40? 50? 75? 99? WHERE DOES IT END (Answer obv is wherever staff decides, but I digress)

I'm casting my official democratic (kekeke) vote for the Rule of Nylab....did the toon in question make a meaningful contribution after showing up late? (Please don't pandora's-box this into "well hell there are people that show up to raids and get loot without contributing anything at all!" b/c that's totally not the point)

(Taru make me king of Policy Plaza tia)

[Tarutao]

So. Let's say, for instance, you have 16 people in raid, and someone runs up with 25% of the mob left, and just gets a raid invite

Why would this happen? This shouldn't happen. The raid leader shouldn't have invited them.

This is bad on every angle.

(1) Need that 17th to kill the mob? That's basically out-of-raid assistance.

(2) Scamming them in to get loot at the last minute? Why didn't you just wait until they got there to engage?

(3) Engaged the mob to get claim on it before another group? Shame on you again, and no.

No loot, and anyone leading a raid that would award them loot is someone whose raids you should avoid.

[lynnettell]

Thank you, Tao, exactly my thoughts.

[Obscenitor]

Pick-Up Raid Loot Distribution

In a pick-up raid, the raid leader has the freedom of distributing loot as he or she sees fit. This freedom is not absolute and comes hand-in-hand with the responsibility to not only make it abundantly clear to the entire force prior to engagement the procedure of loot distribution but to prepare documentation of making the procedure clear to the entire raid that may be provided to staff in case of a dispute afterwards.

In the absence of such clarity (pics or it didn't happen), the loot distribution for each item in question will default to the following: Every character in the raid that wishes to loot an item has the right to a equal random chance at the loot, and this random chance is to be done with /random within an audible distance of the corpse in question in a reasonable time frame allowing for resurrections but not for corpse rotting.

Attempts to abuse this policy in ways including but not limited to the following may be met with severe jail sentences or bannings: (a) Trying to get loot on an under-level character (b) Trying to obtain no drop gear you cannot equip, use for a quest, etc. in order to keep another player from obtaining it (c) deceiving a raid member with clever or tricky wording into believing they have loot chances they not (d) trying to get loot on a character not engaged during the fight.

This policy is NOT restricted to NO DROP loots. You must include coin and cash loot in your "making everything clear". The "standard" that these items default to the raid leader does NOT exist. You must claim those items clearly beforehand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this policy needs clarification. If the only proper documentation the staff will allow is screenshot evidence of loot claims/distribution/etc. then the rule should be amended as such. Currently the rule states "pics or it didn't happen"; considering that this is a phrase loosely used all over the internet it does not properly portray to the SoD community that they need screenshot evidence as opposed to logs.

[Magina]

Probably a good way of putting it if I understand this right, is saying "You need to have a screen shot with you /shout'ing the loot rules with everyone in zone who is in the raid." Or something like that.

[Tarutao]

Yeah, I'm on it. I just need to find a nice way to say "you better be ready to cover your ass against a ninja looting / item theft accusation where the onus of proof is on you that the person petitioning against you had every reason to know the loot distribution beforehand".

14 people in the raid saying "he said it in vent and in-game" doesn't equal evidence that "person 17 that raised a complaint about loot was in zone and in raid when loot distribution was explained".

A very large part of the reason this policy exists is so that a raid consisting of 15 people people in the same guild and 2 people picked up out of OOC cannot bully the 2 out of getting loot by loot claims other than "this is how it will be, if you don't like them, don't do this PuG raid", and the policy must reflect that.

In the meantime, it'd be a good idea to go out of your way to make sure everyone understands and must have seen/understood/agreed. The situation of calling out loot distribution while the 2 people in the raid that are not in your guild are zoning is unacceptable and must be addressed. Clearly, I have work to do, but "cover your ass if you're claiming any items for anyone" is the mindset I'd suggest while I re-write the policy to make the spirit of the policy clearer.

[eqjenius]

A very large part of the reason this policy exists is so that a raid consisting of 15 people people in the same guild and 2 people picked up out of OOC cannot bully the 2 out of getting loot by loot claims other than "this is how it will be, if you don't like them, don't do this PuG raid", and the policy must reflect that.

This statement is very unclear to me, so I'm still not sure of what the supposed problem is that's been identified.

If anything, it seems that the problem is not everyone in the pick-up raid knowing the rules of the pick-up raid when they join. The question then becomes, how do we make the rules of the pick-up raid clear to everyone who joins?

Only two solutions spring to mind:

1) Force all pick-up raids to to abide by the same guidelines. I think this solution is unnecessary at least and deincentivizes the formation of pick-up raids at worst.

2) Find another way of ensuring that all players understand the rules of the pick-up raid.

I think option two is a better way of going. In a perfect world, the raid rules could be posted to the raid window by the raid leader, and everyone who joined the raid would have access to the rules because they're written in the raid window, just like player comments are shown when you right-click and inspect a toon.

If client limitations prevent the editing of the raid window in such a way, perhaps make the raid rules accessible via a game command, like /motd or /guildmotd. Something along the lines of /RAIDLEADERpugmotd. Or whatever.

[Tarutao]

The problem that you don't understand... I'll try to explain it by example.

12 people in guild A start a PuG, grab 6 others.

They announce "Item 'spear of barbeque deliciousness' claimed for Person B, all droppable and coin loot claimed for Raid Leader, all other no drop items to be randomed among those that want and can use" as the loot rules.

Boss target is killed and drops "sword of bacon grease" and "helmet of stryofoam".

Raid Leader awards the sword to Person C in guild A which only Person C and one of the 6 non-guild-A players (Person D) can use, and he does so without randoming.

Person D objects, and the 12 people in guild A say "that item was claimed, we all knew, it was announced" untruthfully.

Person D petitions, GM answers the petition and asks for the story from Person D and the Raid Leader. Person D tells the truth. Raid Leader lies and offers to have his 11 guild A buddies vouch for him.

----------

That's a problem that must be addressed. It will be addressed. Ironing out some issues, but a solution is believed to have been found. Stay tuned.

[Silosobi]

Pick-Up Raid Loot Distribution

In a pick-up raid, the raid leader has the freedom of distributing loot as he or she sees fit. This freedom is not absolute and comes hand-in-hand with the responsibility to announce the procedure of loot distribution in the Open Raiding forum prior to engaging any NPCs for the raid.

In the absence of a clear, unambigious thread in the Open Raiding forum (ambiguity is a GM judgment call that will usually favor the party that did not draft the loot rules), the loot distribution for each item in question will default to the following method: Every character in the raid that wishes to loot an item has the right to a equal random chance at the loot, and this random chance is to be done with /random within an audible distance of the corpse in question in a reasonable time frame allowing for resurrections but not for corpse rotting.

The main question this leaves for me is:

Many times on a pug we will have a target and I will state loot rules for that, but after that dies, something else will spawn or get tracked or w/e and I decide to continue the pug in that direction. Am I allowed to make another post updating the rules for the new raid target even though we have already engaged NPCs, or do I need to make some blanked statement at the end of any claim post saying I reserve the rights to claim anything on mobs past the initial claimed target (Which doesnt sound very encouraging to others, but i dont know how else to clearly state claims for mobs i dont know im killing yet)

[lynnettell]

Many times on a pug we will have a target and I will state loot rules for that, but after that dies, something else will spawn or get tracked or w/e and I decide to continue the pug in that direction. Am I allowed to make another post updating the rules for the new raid target even though we have already engaged NPCs, or do I need to make some blanked statement at the end of any claim post saying I reserve the rights to claim anything on mobs past the initial claimed target (Which doesnt sound very encouraging to others, but i dont know how else to clearly state claims for mobs i dont know im killing yet)

I'm thinking this is a no brainer. Make a new post with new mob/new info/new stuff, explain in /rs what your post says, tell people to read it, tell the people in raid that you're going to a new target, tab over & read it.

But, that's just me thinking people actually read the forums.

[oozu1234]

Yah just make a new post. The only problem i see people bitching about here would be the. "if its the same raid that dropped the last target and the raid leader says in /rs ""READ MY POST FOR NEW TARGETS"" would be the same exact thing as just /rs (insert claims here) and not posting. (the previous Pug loot distribution rule without the new post your shit in forums rule)

[Silosobi]

"loot distribution in the Open Raiding forum prior to engaging any NPCs for the raid."

This is what kind of concerns me. Of course what you all posted is the logical and reasonable solution, but these rules tend to be followed very strictly and I would just like to make sure it is okay to addend rules AFTER engaging some NPCs assuming it pertains to new NPCs that have not been engaged, and is clearly stated to the raid that an addendum has been made.

[Tarutao]

Well... if you're doing something where you think "hey, let's all go kill mob XXXX also while we going strong", then you shouldn't feel a need to claim items for it as well, right?

[oozu1234]

Well... if you're doing something where you think "hey, let's all go kill mob XXXX also while we going strong", then you shouldn't feel a need to claim items for it as well, right?

come on Taru people are greedy u know this wont always happen:) haha

[Silosobi]

Well... if you're doing something where you think "hey, let's all go kill mob XXXX also while we going strong", then you shouldn't feel a need to claim items for it as well, right?

No.

I will not lead pugs without claiming items. It's just my style. People can dislike me for that, but the fact of the matter is that I pug mobs that have never been killed before by a pug force, and its a frustrating job.

My raids are often not even greedy when you look at the numbers. I bring a number of vastly over-tiered toons that will want nothing at all from the encounters. Then I claim the items my and my friend's alts want. Often, this leaves the pug players with a better chance at getting loot than our alts have. I am just not going to let others roll on the 1 or 2 items I want when they already have a chance at lots of awesome loot, and myself and my friends are the ones carrying the raid with overtiered toons.

I know some people don't like claimed loot, but they do not tend to be the same people leading raids, especially high tier raids where ringers are generally required. There are a lot of pug raids that simply would not happen were it not for loot claims. You would also see an increase in higher tier guilds stealing lower tier raid targets for alt loot and/or quest items.

I can just say all loot is claimed for any mob the raid kills that is not specified in the post, But it seems easy and reasonable enough to me to just allow people to post new loot rules for mobs that have not yet been engaged as long as they tell the raid force that they did so.

Despite the fact that i claim lots of stuff, lots of puggers have gotten awesome items from my pugs, and almost everyone seems to enjoy themselves. They are usually getting to kill mobs they have never seen before which is fun even if you don't happen to get loot.

[Draeos]

On the note of pugging high tier raid targets, If it is indeed a pug and not a guild thing this would mean 2/3rds of the raid in the IS pug would have to of killed ALL of OP ALL of IP and been on the aggro list for a ward kill no? In contrast to a guild raid where the guild is flagged for a raid area like IS and you don't necessarily need to have a raid force that has killed everything from OP-IP/Ward

[Silosobi]

I thought the Sanctum flag was just being on a Ward kill? We had 2/3 of that.

Its funny how many times Ive seen sanctum raids, where there is one ringer/friend/alt that isn't guilded, making the raid technically a pug, and they probably didn't have 2/3 toons who killed Nexus much less every IP/OP boss.

The funny thing is there is apparently no way to check who has killed Nexus of the Ward, so you get into a pretty weird situation there. IMO Sanctum just shouldn't require "flags". If you can get there and kill things, you are fine. I remember Ethereal spent months farming IP/OP trash because we couldn't find a couple of the Rituals.

[oozu1234]

I noticed a ve map grp leader posting claims for his GRP. Is this also a rule if your claiming items? Such as my happy as is farming and inviting others to leach/dps. And im claiming everything..... would it be required to post under open raiding forums?

[Stonewalljack]

I have a cleric box with one of the double auged Shields of Freeport, I didn't notice this when I bought it. Should I de-aug it, not use it, wait for a fix, or what?

[Tarutao]

Wait for a fix, but I wouldn't suggest selling it as "pre-nerf" or some other bull.

[Absynthe2k5]

Hi folks, New to the server and looking at the rules etc but wanted some clarification and maybe some insight from a veteran on several things.

I PM would be great if anyone wouldn' mind spending some time talking to a an EQ Vet who is noob here.

Absynthe2k5

[Zengo]

A question about adepts and summoned items.

I looked through this thread and I did not find an answer in regards to this. I'm curious about the policy on summoned items on adept raids goes.
1) cleric logs in, gets summoned cat's eyes for symbol from a mage. Cleric gets asked to a adept raid where there is no mage, can these summoned cat's eyes be used for symbol or must they be bagged/destroyed.
2) Sandjaw raid is called, can a Summoned Deepshard be used for enduring breath.
3) Ranger is running around with a haste ring (bauble of battle), does it need to be bagged/destroyed before engaging in a Sandjaw adept raid.
4) Do pets need to be destroyed if they have the same haste ring on them?
Thank you in advance.

[oozu1234]

A question about adepts and summoned items.

I looked through this thread and I did not find an answer in regards to this. I'm curious about the policy on summoned items on adept raids goes.
1) cleric logs in, gets summoned cat's eyes for symbol from a mage. Cleric gets asked to a adept raid where there is no mage, can these summoned cat's eyes be used for symbol or must they be bagged/destroyed.
2) Sandjaw raid is called, can a Summoned Deepshard be used for enduring breath.
3) Ranger is running around with a haste ring (bauble of battle), does it need to be bagged/destroyed before engaging in a Sandjaw adept raid.
4) Do pets need to be destroyed if they have the same haste ring on them?
Thank you in advance.

another question: rezzing with an out of GROUP person be against the rules if say someone wiped on the giant in WBL. a group. not a raid?

[Zapple]

Is it possible that you could clarify in the 6 man and raid rules thread just exactly what constitutes a wing in Emberflow?

Currently, it just says "Dark elves, kralaws, and demons".

Today my group ran into an issue where another group showed up in the zone and killed a mob (Weaponmaster) that was in the wing we were in (Kralaw) while we were headed to another mob in the same wing.

The GM who answered the petition I made about this wasn't even sure about the whole wings thing and what is part of what wing in this zone.

You would think this would be common sense because Weaponmaster is in fact a Kralaw, but there seemed to be differing opinions at play there.

This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of issue in this zone.

[Stryda]

Is it possible that you could clarify in the 6 man and raid rules thread just exactly what constitutes a wing in Emberflow?

Currently, it just says "Dark elves, kralaws, and demons".

Today my group ran into an issue where another group showed up in the zone and killed a mob (Weaponmaster) that was in the wing we were in (Kralaw) while we were headed to another mob in the same wing.

The GM who answered the petition I made about this wasn't even sure about the whole wings thing and what is part of what wing in this zone.

You would think this would be common sense because Weaponmaster is in fact a Kralaw, but there seemed to be differing opinions at play there.

This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of issue in this zone.

Weaponmaster clear is before kralaw (usually mountain king), I don't think it's wrong for a group to go in and kill weaponmaster while a group is doing MK and/or MT. It doesn't mess with the fight or anything over in those areas. The problem is, there is a grey area in the "Kralaw" and "Demon" wings. To get to both you have to go through the same clear half the way, then after you pass weaponmaster clear it then splits there.

Map below for reference. Unclick "Mobs" on the right to get a clear view. Using the grids, from the center vertical bold white line to four grids right is where the Kralaw/Demon (usually MK/MT/Bapho) clears are the same and where the weaponmaster and several different other names are. Saying a group can't go in there to do weaponmaster is like saying a group can't go in to do melek taus when the first group is doing mountain king. However if you guys are like somehow killing real slow and the second group leapfrog you without permission, I would petition that and push to get them jailed for a lot of days cuz i'm a hater and I hate stuff like that, unless i'm the one doing it.

http://www.mapfiend.net/map/soldungc

[Zapple]

Right but the issue isn't whether you can kill that mob without interfering with another group's combat flagging, it's that the wings aren't clearly defined. You can sure go and clear to and kill hellhound emperor while another group that was there before you has engaged and is killing the bee queen without screwing them over with 6man combat flagging code rendering them unable to perform actions, but according to the idea of "wings" in the rules thread, that's part of the first group's (the one that's killing the bees) wing and would be against the rules.

It's obvious that you often have to clear trash mobs from a wing to get to another wing, and that's fine, but we could still use a clarification of just what named mobs constitute what wing in the zone.

[Stryda]

yes...that's why i said there is a grey area in the wing system...meaning it's unclear...i was just breaking down the wing and suggesting that in my opinion, weaponmaster shouldnt be associated with "kralaws"...

[oozu1234]

Raid content that is NOT doable by pickup raids:
Caverns of Darkness
Stronghold of Enthann
The Abyss
Yclist, the Veiled City
Spires of Saitha
Tur'Rujik
Prison of Admyrrza

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raid going great great great. kill all 4 Valor B bosses. Lose a Cleric. no cleric's in guild online... need a cleric to kill enthaan. We wouldnt be able to invite an out of guild Cleric at this point because it would become a pug? or are we talking /ooc tier 7-8 pug forming need blah blah blah?

[lynnettell]

Questioning that one myself... are Joint raids allowed? Let's say for instance Novus, Prophecy, whoever, has 9 people, and I have 9 people, we need gems/frags/stuff, can we do it with the two guilds cooperating?

[Magina]

Wait, so in theory if you have one person flagged for Gens in ToT, and can get your raid there, you're allowed? Does this apply for guilds as well?

[Nwaij]

Wait, so in theory if you have one person flagged for Gens in ToT, and can get your raid there, you're allowed? Does this apply for guilds as well?

Good luck on controlling 2nd spirit with only one flagged guy in raid...

[oozu1234]

Good luck on controlling 2nd spirit with only one flagged guy in raid...

haha yah that one definatley doesnt work. the 2/3rd's rule was already put in place at this zone well before the rule was ever made

[Magina]

Good luck on controlling 2nd spirit with only one flagged guy in raid...

I'm not 100%, but arn't there some areas you can simply walk to if it's cleared? haha

Not to mention you were literally in a raid with me not 3 weeks ago where we just kicked people till we hit the 2/3rds cap to go back to rez, so maybe 1 wasn't an example. But i'm curious, since with 4 flagged you could then ferry everyone into gens; right? Question still remains, can guilds legally do this?

[Tarutao]

since with 4 flagged you could then ferry everyone into gens; right? Question still remains, can guilds legally do this?

That's content skipping. (in the classical, old-school sense of what content skipping means)

[Sateru]

yes...that's why i said there is a grey area in the wing system...meaning it's unclear...i was just breaking down the wing and suggesting that in my opinion, weaponmaster shouldnt be associated with "kralaws"...

Weaponmaster is a kralaw though. In fact he's the only real Kralaw named (aside from cash mobs and event mobs) so it doesn't make much sense for him not to be in the Kralaw wing.

Up until the last few times I've done EF I have always been told and assumed that the Kralaw wing started at the tunnel next to the lava bridge and the DE wing. Where the first kralaws are.

If the kralaw wing does start next to the demon wing and only includes the MK / Wabo area then where do WM, HHE, and Szasz Queen fit in? I assume if you skip the PM area and head into the WM, HHE, Szasz Queen area you give up your claim on PM.

A more in depth definition of the EF wings by the staff would be much appreciated. Hopefully this doesn't get buried under PuG questions.

[Udeni]

Weaponmaster, hellhound and szasz queen are all kralaws. I'm not so sure about szasz queen, but i know both WM and HHE are on the kralaw faction. Dark elves are obviously the mistborn wing. Demons are Baphomet, Melek Taus, and Mountain King I think. Baphomet and Melek Taus share a large portion of clearing with weaponmaster, which is kinda funky, but I think they are considered two different wings.

[Sateru]

Weaponmaster, hellhound and szasz queen are all kralaws. I'm not so sure about szasz queen, but i know both WM and HHE are on the kralaw faction. Dark elves are obviously the mistborn wing. Demons are Baphomet, Melek Taus, and Mountain King I think. Baphomet and Melek Taus share a large portion of clearing with weaponmaster, which is kinda funky, but I think they are considered two different wings.

Bapho and MT don't really share that much clearing with WM. No more than MK or Szasz Queen. I'm pretty sure that MK is not in the demon wing.

The problem is that the EF wings in the 6 man content thread is really vague. The responses to Zapple's question have so far just been guesses showing that most people really don't know for sure where they are or what mobs they contain.

[Stryda]

Bapho and MT don't really share that much clearing with WM. No more than MK or Szasz Queen. I'm pretty sure that MK is not in the demon wing.

The problem is that the EF wings in the 6 man content thread is really vague. The responses to Zapple's question have so far just been guesses showing that most people really don't know for sure where they are or what mobs they contain.

Yes the wings are pretty vague (except for dark elves) but i'm saying if I wanted to kill weaponmaster while your group is killing mountain king, im going to do it because weaponmaster (a kralaw) is not directly linked to the "kralaw" wing. IF a group wanted to go in there and do Bapho/MT and they see weaponmaster up, they can do that (in my opionion) because they pass by it during the clear. Also I dunno if you guys have done MT/Bapho before but if you don't understand my logic then I give up...but i'm sticking with this. Also why would you even care if someone is killing weaponmaster when you are doing MK/Kralaws...complete waste of time....

[Sateru]

Yes the wings are pretty vague (except for dark elves) but i'm saying if I wanted to kill weaponmaster while your group is killing mountain king, im going to do it because weaponmaster (a kralaw) is not directly linked to the "kralaw" wing.

And I would contest you doing so. Until there is a clear definition of wings. I would say it is linked to the kralaw wing.


IF a group wanted to go in there and do Bapho/MT and they see weaponmaster up, they can do that (in my opionion) because they pass by it during the clear.


They don't pass by it anymore than someone going after the Szasz Queen or Mountain King. They share one more room during the clear than Szasz Queen or Hellhound Emperor. And they share the same amount of rooms with Mountain King clear.


Also I dunno if you guys have done MT/Bapho before but if you don't understand my logic then I give up...but i'm sticking with this.
I have actually. Most wings I know of are defined by what type of mobs are in them just as much as by where they start. Dark Elf wing and Demon wing all have there own mobs that put a clear boundary on where they begin. HHE, Szasz Queen, WM, and MK all pretty much share the same types of mobs.

Also why would you even care if someone is killing weaponmaster when you are doing MK/Kralaws...complete waste of time....

Not really. The rare drops from Weaponmaster are actually really good. Not everyone farms Mountain King just for the tomes.


Really though I'm not posting here so that we can discuss where we think a wing starts or should start. What i'm looking for is a clear definition to where it starts. Preferably from Tao.

[Stryda]

Like I said you dont get my logic so im done, and you can contest all you want cuz weaponmaster drops crappy stuff and he would be dead by the time a GM got into the zone...

Also I don't get why a group killing mountain kill would care who went in to kill weaponmaster...if they cared they would have killed it before going over...my 2 cents...

Weaponmaster is always up too so crying about a mob that no one really kills and you skip it (because his "rares" are so good), then cry about someone going in to kill it after you had neglected it is just funny....

[Sateru]

Like I said you dont get my logic so im done, and you can contest all you want cuz weaponmaster drops crappy stuff and he would be dead by the time a GM got into the zone...

Also I don't get why a group killing mountain kill would care who went in to kill weaponmaster...if they cared they would have killed it before going over...my 2 cents...

Weaponmaster is always up too so crying about a mob that no one really kills and you skip it (because his "rares" are so good), then cry about someone going in to kill it after you had neglected it is just funny....

It doesn't matter why I would care at all. You're missing the point of this. The point is that everyone seems to have their own idea of where the kralaw wing starts and what mobs are in it. If I'm taking a group to go kill HHE I would care that another group is trying to go do WM.

I didn't really care that WM was killed when it happened. What bothered me was that the group killing WM was just doing it as an excuse to stay in the kralaw wing while they waited to snipe MK if we gave up. And that the GM who answered the petition didn't even know if WM was in the same wing as MK.

Like I said though this isn't about people offering their opinion on where they think it starts. What I'd like to know is where it actually starts and what mobs are in it. Regardless of whether I would care if someone else killed them.

[Nwaij]

What I'd like to know is where it actually starts and what mobs are in it. This. So much this. And now cut your discussion out of this thread please - make a new one if you still have arguments.

[Allielyn]

I agree. The 'wings' as my group last tried to define them ended up with so much overlap on the way to them as to be useless.

In fact, due to problems with the way the zone progresses as the wings branch off, I would HIGHLY recommend just making it 6-man limited with no wings at all. If we *really* want to allow wings, I would recommend only two, with the split at the lava bridge.

This is something that needs developer ruling, and a very clear one.

[Tarutao]

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee84/Tarutao_bucket/emberflowwings.jpg

Everyone can take a good new look at this picture. Yes, five wings, and the unclaimable area before you get to one of the wings (much like the 1st floor of Highkeep).

I'll have to figure out names for these wings for the wing list, but yeah, those are the wings now. Any questions?

[Udeni]

So you can actually race a second group to Pyromancer or Szasz queen even if they got there first? Since they're both in the unclaimable area.

[Obscenitor]

So you can actually race a second group to Pyromancer or Szasz queen even if they got there first? Since they're both in the unclaimable area.

Pyromancer is literally a 5 minute clear and no one kills Szasz queen because it is too hard for its tier and the loot is terrible.

[Allielyn]

As I understand it, the first group in zone gets claim. So if a second group comes in and the first group is still clearing, they have to ask what the first group is claiming, and then pick something else.

[Udeni]

Excellent, thank you for the reply.

[Silosobi]

Pyromancer and Szaz should probably just get their own "wings" since they do diverge from the main path.

I think that whatever group is in the zone first has claim to whatever wing they want, even if they are not yet in that wing. (Correct me if that was wrong? Allielyn seems to think the same) If someone else asks "what wing are you claiming", the first group must state what they are claiming. Claiming a wing while you are already in and clearing a different wing should probably be jail/banable (EG: Group is almost to MB, and calls claim for MK because another group zoned in to kill it and the first group wanted to kill both)

MK/MB/MT(or Baphomet)/PM/HE/SQ/WM would probably work for wing names.

The only other disparity I could see with Emberflow is that if a group is headed for MT or Baphomet, can they give permission for a 2nd group to come in and kill the other mob permitted that the two groups dont interfere/assist with eachothers clear at all (the 2nd group would have to wait for full repop of all pulls and clear/split it without help. The same issue could go for killing cash named in claimed wings. I dont see a problem if the group with claim allows it, and the 2nd group has to do a normal full clear.

Very good/needed changes!

[oozu1234]

this is a serious question. not a use your common sense. im wondering if Nadox is or could be one of the very few exceptions to the content skipping rules..... what im talking about is since there is a very short amount of people that even go to Nadox. would it be ok To have a mage flagged for the second beacon and then CoTH people to it when say my grp (usually atleast ALWAYS same 4+ people) is there and flagged and then we need a replacement like an extra cleric (that hasnt made it to the beacon) and obviously this "cleric" will want to flag himself once he's there. is this a HUGE nono?

basically. Can a mage CoTH people to the second beacon flag for grouping purposes?

(im not talking about camping a mage there and just randomly CoTH'ing people to it. Just only when that aprticular mage is grped with us?)

[Dimmi]

Sounds kind of reasonable, especially with the precedent set with hmal tunnels. As I recall it was ruled as the only time ever when it was ok to use a corpsecall to rez a replacement inside, provided you still had the requisite number of flagged toons in the group.

[oozu1234]

Sounds kind of reasonable, especially with the precedent set with hmal tunnels. As I recall it was ruled as the only time ever when it was ok to use a corpsecall to rez a replacement inside, provided you still had the requisite number of flagged toons in the group.

exactly what i was thinking. same sort of thing. The only problem i forsee is when we CoTH people they are obviously gonna want to hail the beacon and flag themselves which is kind of an issue cause getting the flag is hard work and they get it for nothing (which i dont mind) but staffers might.

[oozu1234]

it's nadox, go nuts

Is this seriously an official we dont care about this zone do what you want?

i know you don't care about nadox zae but some of us do and really enjoy the zone. I log in and i get swarmed with people asking if im going to Nadox because its that good of exp! and since some things havent been done i have alot of what i think are legitimate questions that deserve an official yes or no and why answer. This question being one of them

[Tarutao]

it's nadox, go nuts

The Dev that made it made a call in the Policy Questions Thread... okay, fine.

You heard her, go for it.

[oozu1234]

Alright Thanks guys! I didnt know Zae made it:P good work Zae! but thanks for the x2 confirmation!

[Tesselajnen]

As I understand it, the first group in zone gets claim. So if a second group comes in and the first group is still clearing, they have to ask what the first group is claiming, and then pick something else.

Just for a clarification, does this still count in Citadel and BQ when CC/Ofgats is up? Seems to be some dispute about that, cus from the first time I killed CC back in <Dibs> and until a few days ago first ppl in zone had claim. But last time it seemed that this was not the way anymore..?

From me reading the rules, it says that its a claim for the ppl first in zone and it should be enough to say that you are heading to CC/Ofgats for the second group in zone to have to step back. But I would really want just a clarification so I know for sure. Also a clarification on how many ppl in zone (with rest otw) does it take? It used to be 2 (from one claim rueling we had a wile back) but seems a bit uncertain atm.

[Nwaij]

Just for a clarification, does this still count in Citadel and BQ when CC/Ofgats is up? Seems to be some dispute about that, cus from the first time I killed CC back in <Dibs> and until a few days ago first ppl in zone had claim. But last time it seemed that this was not the way anymore..?

What I got from asking Marza about how this works is: You can engage Golems in front of CC with 18 people if you like
Golems are part of CC in regards of claims.
Just being in the zone, or even kinda close to golems, is no claim. Be on aggro list if you want claim.

[kallemur4]

Then I would like to have a BIG post on the rules section about this since it would be a LARGE exception from the rules in other parts of the 6 man game (Emberflow for example, where you dont even have to be close to the wing to have claim)
And also it is a BIG change of how the rules have been interpretated before (where 2 persons have held CC claim from zone in)

IF the GM/Dev crew decide on a new set of claim rules than the ones used in past I would like those to be posted so they are clear.

Btw, the rules stated by Nwaij here would make training/leapfrogging/being asshole REWARDED. Is that what we want? Can logs tell if one monk/pally combo train a group and jail/ban them if they do that?

Otherwise we have created a BAAAD situation where ppl will train eachother first to get them killed (and no competiton alive for the mob wanted)

Btw, is it the GM crew or the Devs that set the rules? just curious... I thought it was the lead GM?

[Tesselajnen]

What I got from asking Marza about how this works is: You can engage Golems in front of CC with 18 people if you like
Golems are part of CC in regards of claims.
Just being in the zone, or even kinda close to golems, is no claim. Be on aggro list if you want claim.

Well according to the Rules thread:
"Claw Commander Era`velu in Citadel of the Claw and Supreme Ritualist Ofgats in Bloodied Quarry - Only the bosses themselves are considered "6 man content", so there are no restrictions from rezz/buff bots or even for using a full 18-man raid to clear the mobs in front of the boss himself." Wich I would interpret as golems is not a real part of the encounter? Ie aggro on thoose does not = claim on CC.

And when reading more of the rules there also is:
"This means that they follow the raid rules listed above while still being groupable content. In these situations you must have 6 or a capable force to claim via the Right of Way rule and you may have only 6 characters actively benefiting a raid at any time." Wich leads us to "Right of Way" part of rules;

"To claim a wing/zone/encounter, you need 6 people present. This claim is invalidated if you have done nothing in the wing/zone/encounter, and continue to do nothing for 30 minutes or more from the time a dispute occurs." Wich, according to the 6man rules also includes 6-man encounters? It doesnt say you need aggro on the encounter to have claim if you are first in zone? So why have aggro on golems as claim that is not part of the encounter in Cita in that case?

A clarification is really needed cus just as posted above here is that if aggro golems = claim, we have big issues inc and those imo completely new rules really needs to be stated in print for all to see and understand.

My points after the real rules is how I interpret the rules btw... Maybe Im completely off..?

[Tarutao]

You can engage Golems in front of CC with 18 people if you like
Golems are part of CC in regards of claims.
Just being in the zone, or even kinda close to golems, is no claim. Be on aggro list if you want claim.

This is how it is. Running one character to suicide into a golem doesn't count, and if you need the reasoning for that explained, then you need to let the other people in your group make your decisions for you.

While the staff doesn't recognize camps of exp zones, the playerbase at large does recognize camps at a matter of courtesy and mutual respect befitting the average member of the SoD community. You should be able to figure out who should have claim under general courtesy regardless of the rules.

Years and years ago, fighting over mobs was a usual thing, and it was ugly. After the SoD 2.0 switch to an 18-man raid paradigm, a lot of guilds decided that ugly claim disputes weren't in their best interest and that they didn't want to have to wait for a staff member to handle their disputes that they weren't able to handle like adults. You don't want to go back to how it was in 2006, trust me.

[Tarutao]

I've done some cleanup in this thread.

Some things were said and done that violate the Silver Rule ("One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated"), and this is ultimately a standard that the SoD community at large tends to follow and should suffice for the issues raised in the removed posts.

Please don't pick apart that comment and re-interpret it as directed verbal attacks. It was not meant as such.

[kallemur4]

How many ugly training incidents will it take before staff realizes it is easier and more beneficial to frieldy attitudes, to have the rules proposed that the ones you intend to use?

And is it intended to have TWO chars running up (training all others) and die to golems in a suicide mission?