Policy Questions Thread

Zaela said:
it's nadox, go nuts
Click to expand...

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
 
Allielyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tesselajnen said:
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..?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Nwaij said:
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.
Click to expand...

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..?
 
Nwaij said:
  • 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
This might be in this thread but also maybe not.

Does unpuggable for the purpose of unpuggable zones mean literally nobody outside of the guild?

More specifically:

Can one man (like me) go on a raid with a lower tiered guild in a zone that I've totally been through (like if Goon Squad goes to Abyss)?
 
fuwok said:
This might be in this thread but also maybe not.

Does unpuggable for the purpose of unpuggable zones mean literally nobody outside of the guild?

More specifically:

Can one man (like me) go on a raid with a lower tiered guild in a zone that I've totally been through (like if Goon Squad goes to Abyss)?
Click to expand...


As far as i know and been told by a couple GM's first question is a Yes, (i wanted to take some of my lower tiered friends to Yclist to loot TRASH rots for r2 and they told me no)

and Second question is also a no, because why would it be any different than Ringers making a pug?
 
Well in the second case it is different from ringers making a pug because it is only one man going with a bunch of his internet bros who are all guilded together (or possibly 2 guilds working together?) not just an open call for any jerks who want to go do a raid together.
 
Totally! Because people who use ringers are random jerks, and people who PuG are all random jerks too.

=P

This policy may not stand forever, but if you don't want to be smacked down (of course, we *always* look for opportunities to do this) then please follow the letter of the law as it currently stands.
 
I'm conscientiously objecting to this policy but I have taken no other action against the policy except for the complaints lodged herein.

edit: to further elaborate, the reason I don't like this is that it restricts players from experiencing content that they might be able to do with their friends. They could go with their bros guilds except the no pug rule prevents that, and in doing so, it prevents fun. Legalize fun - remove this restriction please.
 
Last edited:
fuwok said:
I'm conscientiously objecting to this policy but I have taken no other action against the policy except for the complaints lodged herein.

edit: to further elaborate, the reason I don't like this is that it restricts players from experiencing content that they might be able to do with their friends. They could go with their bros guilds except the no pug rule prevents that, and in doing so, it prevents fun. Legalize fun - remove this restriction please.
Click to expand...

Agree this is a really terrible policy and creates bigger problems than it solves. This significantly decreases the amount of fun that people can have with this game by restricting the content they can do with their friends who happen to be in another guild. I have yet to even hear an argument that makes sense as to why anyone CARES about pugging except that "they aren't playing the game the way I play it"
 
Allielyn said:
This policy may not stand forever
Click to expand...

It won't. Feel free to whine about it as a "stopgap".

burt6 said:
I have yet to even hear an argument that makes sense as to why anyone CARES about pugging except that "they aren't playing the game the way I play it"
Click to expand...

I suppose I can answer this here, but most people I've mentioned it to seem to think I'm an idiot.

Basically, I blame the [Relic Hunters] and [The Vah] for the rise of PuGs which have killed the mid-tier guild.

I argue that PuGs have actually hurt the mid-tier raiding of the server. The bullying bullcrap that led to the huge backlash against the really-very-reasonable Pickup Raid Loot Distribution Policy of requiring you formally claim anything you're claiming was another "PuGs are hurting the server" thing for me.

Are PuGs bad in and of themselves? No. Have a lot of PuGs in the last 3 years been pretty damaging to "the mid-tier guild" on SoD? Yes, and in fact that's what I believe is the reason for the recent misconception that people need to finish the Codex of Power before they can join a raiding guild.

Oh, and if you have a problem with anything I've said in this post after the second quote, don't put that in this thread. Take it somewhere else, or expect it to get deleted.
 
CMal is a 6 man zone right and follows under the raid rules? Does having/loading buff bots at zone in count as breaking the rules?
 
Still does, but i dont think there's anything against keeping buff bots at the ENTRANCE, because its 6man wings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom