Policy Questions Thread

Personally, I like that take on claiming camps. We are all human beings, we need to treat each other with respect. I only had 1 issue like that in game. But, in the end there was no issue.

If the Devs and Admins have an issue with something, then you can expect a change. :eek:
 
Would the staff please shed some light on the act of /q'ing a character out as a quick means of hopping to another character? This can occasionally leave a single person with four or five characters online all at once, though only two actually active (i.e. not linkdead). It's especially common among people who utilize buffbots, which even bypasses the nice quick camp feature in cities that was implemented many months ago.

Personally, I never /q out to swap characters unless I'm single-boxing or intend to wait ~5 minutes before firing up another character just to be sure I don't get flagged for boxing over the limit. Is my caution unwarranted? Again, the practice is very common, so I would assume that the lack of any retribution from staff on the matter means that it must be permissible.

What exactly is the policy? Are people who use /q regularly to character swap putting the accounts they use in jeopardy?
 
Grinkles said:
Is my caution unwarranted? Again, the practice is very common, so I would assume that the lack of any retribution from staff on the matter means that it must be permissible.

What exactly is the policy? Are people who use /q regularly to character swap putting the accounts they use in jeopardy?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, LD characters count for the 3-boxing limit. I am not on staff but I remember reading it somewhere around here, just can't find it right now. My searching skills are failing me.
 
Allielyn said:
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.)
Click to expand...
I think this pretty clearly answers your questions grinkles its in the OP
 
Cinny said:
I think this pretty clearly answers your questions grinkles its in the OP
Click to expand...
Thank you. I searched a few of the other threads but didn't realize this one began with a sort of FAQ. (And ouch, that red is hard on the eyes!) This definitely settles it for me.

If it is against the rules, why is it never cautioned against on public channels or elsewhere? I see people do this on several accounts all at once before the LD toons disappear, and it always makes me nervous for them. The fact that they do it so nonchalantly, however, led me to believe it must be okay or else they would've been approached by the staff at some point. I don't like seeing others unknowingly put their accounts at risk. :confused:
 
fuwok said:
I've said this before and I know its never well received, but gross multiboxing (3+) should be allowed in cities. Heck, even just allow it only 1 zone like sadri or something. Buffing is a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Literally everyone agrees with this. Not one person I have talked to in recent history (6 months or more) has said they completely support how obnoxiously hard it is to load buffs up for two characters alone.
 
Would staff please rephrase the 6-man wing description of emberflow? The thread discussing this makes it sound as though there are only three claimable wings in ember (dark elves, daemons, kralaw) however upon discussing it with jumbers, he has clarified that each individual wing is its own claim (including weaponmaster, HH, and szasz)

This may seem unneeded, however recently groups have been trying to claim Kralaw by doing weaponmaster and insinuating they have claim over MK wing at the same time. This is misinformed, and a clarification will prevent needless disagreements, and should help to sort things out without staff involvement.

Thanks for the consideration.

-Pazms
 
Pretty simple. Each wing of Emberflow has its own color when you look at the ingame map.
 
So, I was jailed today for apparently content skipping in windstone caverns by using a rogue hide/sneak to run to a boss trigger mob and solo it to get to the boss. Because of this I was accused of content skipping. I disagree with this sentencing based on this post found throughout the rules on forum and wiki by Woldo.

"Content skipping-

Explicitly skipping mobs that are obviously intended to be part of the clear to an encounter, for instance training away inner prison statues and beelining directly for the dragons is not allowed. Obviously if mobs do not see invis you can invis past them and things like that. This also includes rezzing your group / raid past mobs.*"

As rogue hide/sneak is just an advanced form of invis, i should not have been jailed for this. In addition i believe it to be part of the rogue class to be able to do things like this where possible.

If the posted content skipping rules that exist now do not represent the current intent, they need to be changed.
 
Thing is, you used a ROG and his superior form of invis to skip yourself (and your group) past mobs that would have seen throug YOUR invis. Thats where you did content skipping - ROG doing ROG scouting is 100% fine.
 
Nwaij said:
Thing is, you used a ROG and his superior form of invis to skip yourself (and your group) past mobs that would have seen throug YOUR invis. Thats where you did content skipping - ROG doing ROG scouting is 100% fine.
Click to expand...


I disagree that this is explicitly defined as being against the rules and infer that the rules need to be updated. Granted, I believe that such a ruling narrows the definition of what rogues class role is, especially given the dev teams definition of what rogues are supposed to be. Per Slaar (recent): "Rogues use the element of surprise to increase their combat effectiveness...Rogues get in, get the kill, and get out."

Reference: https://shardsofdalaya.com/forum/threads/we-all-love-monks-here.29150/ post 1

Now, if I was being accused based on the "our sandbox, don't do it" clause, that would be a whole nother story. And I would think should have resulted in a tell from staff, not a jailing.
 
Last edited:
You asked for clarification, you got clarification. You still think you have been jailed unfairly, we have a process for how to appeal jails. Dragging things to the forum is not part of that process.
 
Honestly the jailing isnt what bothers me in the end. Like I said, it's your sandbox. I'm just happy to play in it. It would just be nice to have more clearly defined rules is all. I wont post about this again unless others feel the need to chime in.
 
I don't see how a rogue popping a mob is really any different than monks FD training mobs out of the way to skip pulls... this seems like a common sense sort of thing.

"Explicitly skipping mobs that are obviously intended to be part of the clear to an encounter" is what were looking at, not the invis clarification imo.
 
AngryCow said:
I don't see how a rogue popping a mob is really any different than monks FD training mobs out of the way to skip pulls... this seems like a common sense sort of thing.

"Explicitly skipping mobs that are obviously intended to be part of the clear to an encounter" is what were looking at, not the invis clarification imo.
Click to expand...
because you can code a mob to see through rogue sneak/hide but you cant code a mob to prevent feign death. honestly i think being jailed for this thing is kind of silly because you can prevent it by coding the trigger mob to only port people on its hate list, making the trash see through rogue sneak/hide, making the trigger mob non-soloable, putting trash mobs in the room with the trigger mob etc. Now if they had used a monk to FD to it and solo the trigger with trash that saw through sneak/hide would be content skipping, but that is not the case.

Honestly to me it seems like being punished for a developer oversight on something that looks like an intended game mechanic.
 
Yeah, there may be a coding difference, but its mechanically similar in terms of moving through content. I feel like bringing one class to cheese a number of pulls still fits "Explicitly skipping mobs that are obviously intended to be part of the clear to an encounter". Yeah, a dev could probably fix it, but they shouldn't have to. (Also you can code mobs against FD too, I've run into some)
 
AngryCow said:
Yeah, there may be a coding difference, but its mechanically similar in terms of moving through content. I feel like bringing one class to cheese a number of pulls still fits "Explicitly skipping mobs that are obviously intended to be part of the clear to an encounter". Yeah, a dev could probably fix it, but they shouldn't have to. (Also you can code mobs against FD too, I've run into some)
Click to expand...
Thing is the solution to prevent "content skipping" on this is so obvious that most players would think that it is an intentional game mechanic. Rogue hide is an invis and using invis to bypass monsters is legal, whereas using FD to skip monsters is clearly stated in the rules as an unintended game mechanic. With this specific case being such a gray area and so debated, a special case should be added to the rules, or the content of the game altered to prevent a rogue from sneak/hiding and triggering the port to the boss.

As for using the rogues superior invis to bypass the monsters, the port to the mob is a group port that can be triggered by one person. If each person was intended to have to make it to the trigger mob, the port would probably only effect those on the aggro list or those who hail etc.

For clarification, does using a rogue to sneak by Cmal 3 snakes to port the group to the cmal 4 constitute as content skipping?
 
There should be no wiggle room or room for interpretation when it comes to stuff like that. If the mobs don't see through Rogue invis, then it should be okay for a Rogue to sneak past and do what he does. If the Dev wanted people to clear everything, then it should be coded that way, period. Saying it was intended, but wasn't coded that way, so you should just clear everything is silly. Leave no room for debate and make it work exactly how it is intended to work.
 
In my ideal version of SoD, everything is coded to eliminate wiggle-room and allow content to unfold and be experienced in the way the Devs envision it. In the version of SoD that must exist in this imperfect reality, we all have to work together to find times when it didn't turn out that way. If you think that you should be able to kill a wing boss without clearing the wing trash then you are wrong and please correct this in your mind. It is never appropriate to, by any means, go from the start of a wing to the boss of a wing without killing any trash (unless explicitly stated otherwise). This is not new, weird, or unexpected. If there is a question about what is trash what is a wing what is a boss, then you can ask that question. In fact, it is part of the process that the question BE asked and answered. If the question is "Is this an exploit?" assume the default answer is "Yes". Maybe it isn't! Maybe it is! Maybe don't take that chance and ask!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom