Raid Claim discussion

AngryCow

Dalayan Elder
This is a post where we can civilly discuss the recent clarification to the raid claim rules. For ease here are the before and after:

Old:
"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). This limitation applies to 12-man and 18-man content in the sense that only one of either is allowed and not one of both. 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."

New:
"To claim a wing/zone/encounter, you need 6 people present and be actively killing. Once you have begun clearing, if you stop and there is a dispute, you have 30 minutes to resume killing or you can lose your claim. If you enter a wing/zone/encounter and you DO NOT kill anything, YOU DO NOT have claim. 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). This limitation applies to 12-man and 18-man content in the sense that only one of either is allowed and not one of both. 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.

Additionally, if you have a dispute in petitions and you leave the zone/wing/encounter where you and the other guild are waiting for a resolution, your claim is automatically lost and you will be considered to have ceded the claim to the other party. This may happen if no claim on right-of-way is made, but a guild decides it might be better worth their time to go kill undisputed raid mobs instead of wait for a GM to rule on the petition.

The exception is for raid zones like prison that are large enough to be divided into wings (inner prison would be one claimable area for instance). Once that force has less than 6 players in the zone for an hour or more, the claim ceases (so you can't just jump in if they wipe unless they aren't coming back within an hour)."
 
ok - so its CLEARLY written there from old-new. Someone please tell me that the rules weren't changed.. and that they were just "clarified." The old rules state not killing anything for 30 minutes.. Now, its going to be a race everywhere to kill a mob. The rule was fine as it was before. First with 6 in zone 30 minutes without killing, you forfeit claim. Makes perfect sense.

Now - Why was a guild with player/GM's in it - pushing to kill a mob first? That's not what the rule stated. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that goes against exactly what the rules said. Am I wrong? The week before when they got beat to zone, the player/GM's that were with the raid immediately zoned out when they saw we already had people in zone because that's "in the spirit of the rules"

Bro's mad because they got beat to zone twice in 2 weeks? So we change the rules so it doesn't happen again? There wasn't anything wrong with the rules. And the rule change doesn't positively affect anyone EXCEPT the party that got beat.

If you look at the old rules - there is absolutely nothing that is unclear. You have to be killing monsters within 30 minutes of having 6 in zone. Period.

Now, someone PLEASE tell me that you didn't change the rules again.. In front of the SOD community.. Then jail me when I prove you wrong.

This proves you wrong, and shows that you were favoring your guild. And jailed me because I called you out.

Nobody cares that the rules were changed. Its the fact that you changed them, didn't announce it, then acted like you didn't change them. lol

p.s. you shouldn't be answering petitions/claim disputes that involve your guild.
 
http://imgur.com/g1fCON9

dunno how this picture stuff works.. I don't usually follow the forums

But its a pic of Resurgum having 8 in zone.

it was 10 when SB bumrushed past us to kill first mob and sit for an hour to wait for a GM to show up

Also I feel like I need to say this

(The views stated above do not necessarily reflect the views of Resurgum as a guild or the guild leadership and are strictly my own)
 
Last edited:
i remember thinking you had to engage something to have claim. i had a dispute over this and i was told that since they had 6 in zone first they have claim. im glad the rules have been CHANGED to encourage my leapfrogging dickish play style
 
Some clarification on the current rule I got from a GM. The scenario is two groups of 6 (A and B) are racing to claim a zone.

SCENARIO #1
Group A engages Mob Juan. Group B engages Mob Dos a few seconds afterwords. Group B kills Mob Dos BEFORE Group A kills Mob Juan. Group A kills Mob Juan AFTER Group B kills Mob Dos. The claim is awarded to Group A.
SCENARIO #1.5
Oh no, Group A wiped after engaging Mob Juan because their tank was a wood elf warrior. Group B still kills Mob Dos. Group B is awarded claim because Group A wiped, despite Group A engaging first.
SCENARIO #2
Group A engages Mob Juan. Group B also engages Mob Juan. Group B kills Mob Juan after Group A engaged Mob Juan first. Group B is in violation of engage rules and should feel bad.

Unrelated to racing to claim but still relevant GM clarification, if you have at least 6 and can kill normal(not trap mobs or nonkos mobs) then the claim is legal. Killing to keep claim away from others with 0 chance of slaying the boss is a different issue (Tevinter note- assuming this is a case by cases basis). Once you kill something you need to make progression within 30 minutes.
 
p.s. you shouldn't be answering petitions/claim disputes that involve your guild.
This is honestly super important and dont know why this issue came up. I think another GM learned his lesson years ago regarding a claim dispute in spires. Personally, I dont think any staff member affiliated with a guild in a claim dispute should be allowed to touch the petition. If no "neutral" staff member can be reached within a somewhat reasonable time (an hour seems pretty fair), and the 2 guilds disputing cannot resolve the issue without staff intervention, then both guilds/groups/parties should just get removed from the zone. Yes this punishes whoever is the rightful winner of the claim, but I think missing a spawn of a zone/mob is better for server health than debacles like this. You'd have to do something about a 3rd party swooping in after people get removed cause of no GM though.

As it stands now, the first to engage style claim really opens a lot of fuckery with getting claim. How do you differentiate between crownk boxing the cleric and accidentally healing the monk who is trying to pull and accidentally training mobs to the zone in, and Arcibeisleyeelingcinn the staff threatening exploiting staff-corruption-dice-hack RMT-Lord healing the monk who is pulling on "accident" to train the zone? Or an AoE proc weapon using nerd from the opposing group wakes up your mez when you are trying to establish claim?
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it will never get to that Tevinter. But there are still ways to see issues like that, it just takes a while. As to Staff not handling their own petitions, that already happens. This instance from last week was handled by me, not affiliated with either guild. And the above mentioned events are all hypothetical. Any number of things could happen during any of those scenarios that could lead to other outcomes. Sometimes something that looks the same on to the outside is not always the same. You had questions, those are generalized answers, but each scenario can be different.
 
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.
The confusion comes from this one sentence. The coma after encounter and the and after the coma. There should have been something like and/or. You have to have engaged a normal mob to have claim, just being there is nothing. Now once you kill something, then you have 30 minutes to continue killing/progressing through the zone or you can lose your claim. The issue here though is that the 30 minutes technically does not start until a dispute has been petitioned. But you still have to have killed a mob. Last week, no mob had been killed when Sacred Band zoned in, disputed claim and killed a mob. Thus at that point SB would have had claim because technically Resurgum had not done anything. Now, I can understand where you might think this will lead to people behaving badly, it should not, because if people continually try to abuse this rule, then staff will relook at the issue. So just try not to go that direction. We were realy not trying to cause any issues, just clarify the policy so that there would not be any issues moving forward.
 
eternity was part of that Sacred Band raid tho. Just saying Xor. Onar and his alt were part of that raid.
One member in a SB led raid that I didn't even know he was there when I handled the petition. As far as I was concerned it was Resurgum and SB since those were the raid leaders. Also I ruled in Resurgum's favor. It wasn't until I was rereading the policy(like a bunch of times) and asked someone completely unaffiliated to read it that I realized the error. I talked with Marthog about it but abided by my previous ruling for that instance. And believe me, the GM Trainees that were present in the SB raid went with the ruling and did not complain. I spoke to SB about it later to clear things up but had not talked any with either trainee about the clarification. That came about after I talked with GM Admin Karit and she confirmed that I had erred and gave me permission to clarify.
 
Last edited:
The whole idea of this policy was to encourage people from behaving like disrespectful juveniles and bring some sense of order to what can be a chaotic situation. I think that the old policy obviously left room for confusion. I, and obviously others, thought that 6 in zone with the same guild tag had claim, but had to have a capable force within 30 minutes and had to kill a viable trash mob in that time or the claim would be lost. I have never liked this 6-man requirement because there are some raid mobs that don't require 6 to kill (obviously lower tiered mobs). Truthfully, if I cleared into a mob boss that I was capable of killing with 2, 3, 4 or 5 only to have another group swoop in and kill it while we were medding up, and this action was ok'd by this policy :mad:, I would very likely consider leaving SoD forever (my wife and I have been playing for about 10 years now) and never recommend it to anyone.

That said, I think that the new policy encourages one guild to leapfrog another. In my opinion this new policy will require much more staff intervention, will result in creating hostile attitudes between people and guilds and will result in harming the server in the end.

Complaining without presenting solutions is unproductive so, here is an idea to toss around:

If a zone claim is in question (these steps would only be applied when a claim is in question, not for when a guild has obvious claim ... i.e. 18 in zone or having already killed a raid trash mob):

1. Make a /dispute command
2. When 6 people (any 6 people) in the same raid zone type /dispute, it "locks" the zone. Locking the zone prevents anyone from zoning in until the lock is removed. People who attempt to zone into a locked zone are sent to bind instead. Locking the zone makes every NPC mob in the zone unengageable (not able to be aggro'd or attacked in any way). No NPC mob can be killed until the zone is unlocked. Locking the zone makes the entire zone PVP.
3. A server wide message should announce when a zone has been locked in dispute.
4. The zone can only be unlocked when a single character is left. Last man standing wins the claim, unlocks the zone and their guild.
5. Once the zone is unlocked it returns to normal meaning that people can zone in and NPC mobs are no longer unengageable.
6. A server wide announcement would announce the zone unlock, including the time it was unlocked, and credit the victor! HURRAY for the champion!:) The winners would then have 30 minutes to get a force in the zone and kill a raid trash mob to hold claim. Failing to kill something in 30 minutes would allow for another dispute.

This solution provides an opportunity to put PVP skills to good use. I for one have never gotten into PVP, but something like this might encourage me to practice. The server-wide announcement would bring some excitement - perhaps people even cheering for a victor in /ooc like an roman gladiator battle. The hard coding of this (if possible, and I think it would be possible) would remove the necessity for GM intervention at every dispute. It would allow guilds to build a healthy rivalry and bring another aspect to guild competition.

FAQ (I am sure there are other questions that may come up. These are only my suggestions for how I see this working so I am not going to answer bunches of questions - I will leave some of that for the staff should they decide to implement an idea like this):

Q1: If 4 people from one guild zone in and type /dispute and the two from another guild zone in and do the same, would this lock the zone?
A1: Yes and battle of 4 vs 2 would ensue. If the guild with 4 won with 3 still standing, two would have to gate out (or be killed :D) and then the third would be declared the victor and the zone would unlock.

Q2: What happens if guild A zones in 6 and they go "afk" while they wait for others to zone in and then guild B zones 6 people in, places the zone in dispute and slaughters the 6 afk'd characters from guild A?
A2: Guild B wins the claim because guild A is full of slackers!

Q3: What happens if guild X actively raiding when guild Y decides to be dicks and zone in and lock the zone? What if guild Y is higher tier and they slaughter guild X to steal claim?
A3: Then guild Y is clearly full of juveniles and it shouldn't be hard for a GM to figure out a petition and punish guild Y (For this particular abuse, I would recommend some jail time for every member of guild Y involved, but I'll leave crime and punishment up to the staff).

Q4: What happens in a winged zone (Thaz, Prison, etc.) if guild A is raiding one wing and then two other guild zone in to dispute a different wing?
A4: This one is tricky and may require some GM intervention, but here's a possible solution: Obviously any mob that guild A was engaged with would become unengageable and would return to its spawn point. Guild A would have to wait for the dispute between the other guild to solve itself in PVP combat. Then, the members of guild A would have to relog to allow there to be the one character (the victor) left in the zone to unlock it. Yes, it would inconvenience guild A for a bit, but they would also have front row seats for the PVP action. It goes without saying (I hope) that guild A should not involve itself in any way with the dispute by helping either side. Any interference by guild A should constitute some form of punishment such as a short jail sentence for those that interfered and should allow the dispute to be replayed (obviously through a petition by the losing side if they have proof that guild A interfered such as a time-stamped log or a screenshot of someone being nuked, hit or healed by a member of guild A).

Q5: Could a guild gain claim by zoning 6 people into a raid zone, locking the zone and then having 5 zone out?
A5: Yes.

Q6: Wouldn't this policy allow a guild to squat 6 in a zone with claim?
A6: Yes, for 30 minutes and then it could be disputed again.

Q7: What if the 6 characters claiming a zone in your above question are all ubered out and can't be beaten by us in PVP?
A7: Either you need to bring more people (it is a raid zone so you can bring 18 - organize it so all 18 zone in at once and it would be 18 vs 6 :eek:) or you need to become better at pushing buttons and practice some PVP skills.

Thank you for your time. I hope we can all learn to play nice and respect each other out there.
 
The whole idea of this policy was to encourage people from behaving like disrespectful juveniles and bring some sense of order to what can be a chaotic situation. I think that the old policy obviously left room for confusion. I, and obviously others, thought that 6 in zone with the same guild tag had claim, but had to have a capable force within 30 minutes and had to kill a viable trash mob in that time or the claim would be lost. I have never liked this 6-man requirement because there are some raid mobs that don't require 6 to kill (obviously lower tiered mobs). Truthfully, if I cleared into a mob boss that I was capable of killing with 2, 3, 4 or 5 only to have another group swoop in and kill it while we were medding up, and this action was ok'd by this policy :mad:, I would very likely consider leaving SoD forever (my wife and I have been playing for about 10 years now) and never recommend it to anyone.

That said, I think that the new policy encourages one guild to leapfrog another. In my opinion this new policy will require much more staff intervention, will result in creating hostile attitudes between people and guilds and will result in harming the server in the end.

Complaining without presenting solutions is unproductive so, here is an idea to toss around:

If a zone claim is in question (these steps would only be applied when a claim is in question, not for when a guild has obvious claim ... i.e. 18 in zone or having already killed a raid trash mob):

1. Make a /dispute command
2. When 6 people (any 6 people) in the same raid zone type /dispute, it "locks" the zone. Locking the zone prevents anyone from zoning in until the lock is removed. People who attempt to zone into a locked zone are sent to bind instead. Locking the zone makes every NPC mob in the zone unengageable (not able to be aggro'd or attacked in any way). No NPC mob can be killed until the zone is unlocked. Locking the zone makes the entire zone PVP.
3. A server wide message should announce when a zone has been locked in dispute.
4. The zone can only be unlocked when a single character is left. Last man standing wins the claim, unlocks the zone and their guild.
5. Once the zone is unlocked it returns to normal meaning that people can zone in and NPC mobs are no longer unengageable.
6. A server wide announcement would announce the zone unlock, including the time it was unlocked, and credit the victor! HURRAY for the champion!:) The winners would then have 30 minutes to get a force in the zone and kill a raid trash mob to hold claim. Failing to kill something in 30 minutes would allow for another dispute.

This solution provides an opportunity to put PVP skills to good use. I for one have never gotten into PVP, but something like this might encourage me to practice. The server-wide announcement would bring some excitement - perhaps people even cheering for a victor in /ooc like an roman gladiator battle. The hard coding of this (if possible, and I think it would be possible) would remove the necessity for GM intervention at every dispute. It would allow guilds to build a healthy rivalry and bring another aspect to guild competition.

FAQ (I am sure there are other questions that may come up. These are only my suggestions for how I see this working so I am not going to answer bunches of questions - I will leave some of that for the staff should they decide to implement an idea like this):

Q1: If 4 people from one guild zone in and type /dispute and the two from another guild zone in and do the same, would this lock the zone?
A1: Yes and battle of 4 vs 2 would ensue. If the guild with 4 won with 3 still standing, two would have to gate out (or be killed :D) and then the third would be declared the victor and the zone would unlock.

Q2: What happens if guild A zones in 6 and they go "afk" while they wait for others to zone in and then guild B zones 6 people in, places the zone in dispute and slaughters the 6 afk'd characters from guild A?
A2: Guild B wins the claim because guild A is full of slackers!

Q3: What happens if guild X actively raiding when guild Y decides to be dicks and zone in and lock the zone? What if guild Y is higher tier and they slaughter guild X to steal claim?
A3: Then guild Y is clearly full of juveniles and it shouldn't be hard for a GM to figure out a petition and punish guild Y (For this particular abuse, I would recommend some jail time for every member of guild Y involved, but I'll leave crime and punishment up to the staff).

Q4: What happens in a winged zone (Thaz, Prison, etc.) if guild A is raiding one wing and then two other guild zone in to dispute a different wing?
A4: This one is tricky and may require some GM intervention, but here's a possible solution: Obviously any mob that guild A was engaged with would become unengageable and would return to its spawn point. Guild A would have to wait for the dispute between the other guild to solve itself in PVP combat. Then, the members of guild A would have to relog to allow there to be the one character (the victor) left in the zone to unlock it. Yes, it would inconvenience guild A for a bit, but they would also have front row seats for the PVP action. It goes without saying (I hope) that guild A should not involve itself in any way with the dispute by helping either side. Any interference by guild A should constitute some form of punishment such as a short jail sentence for those that interfered and should allow the dispute to be replayed (obviously through a petition by the losing side if they have proof that guild A interfered such as a time-stamped log or a screenshot of someone being nuked, hit or healed by a member of guild A).

Q5: Could a guild gain claim by zoning 6 people into a raid zone, locking the zone and then having 5 zone out?
A5: Yes.

Q6: Wouldn't this policy allow a guild to squat 6 in a zone with claim?
A6: Yes, for 30 minutes and then it could be disputed again.

Q7: What if the 6 characters claiming a zone in your above question are all ubered out and can't be beaten by us in PVP?
A7: Either you need to bring more people (it is a raid zone so you can bring 18 - organize it so all 18 zone in at once and it would be 18 vs 6 :eek:) or you need to become better at pushing buttons and practice some PVP skills.

Thank you for your time. I hope we can all learn to play nice and respect each other out there.

ppl will call you crazy and this game wasn't balanced around pvp and all this does is create more guild hostility, but i would welcome that new system with open arms. nothing would please me more than battling it out battle royal style for a turruj claim.
 
Would be extremely funny to see the after video's of these fights tho... Crews like Ringers swooping in on <insert random guild> that has newly broken into TurRuj and are trying to do their very first Tar'Loc and such :p
 
Yah my only concern with how this is written now is the feeling of leapfrogging happening to engage and kill a mob if 2 guilds are rushing for a target such as tur'ruj (since that's never up long). both guilds running into zone and engaging mobs starting the timer and then needing to put in a petition. incases of say oc'tar this would just be a disaster if a dispute would happen after a mob dies. Also, in cases like this how does the second guild know if first has not killing anything yet If they just ran in to leapfrog past a guild that seems to be sitting there because they are doing buffs after first kill and now you have a dispute that should not be happening IMO. I don't know what the answer is but maybe give fist with 6 in zone a little time buffer to engage something or even better yet..just ask the other raid force before engaging something and have both groups be civil...we have a small server so why not keep raiding (no matter the tier) civil. AKA don't be a dick rule not just player to player but guild to guild.

ps. yea I know it's a pipe dream with my answer but a cluserfuck to kill a mob before entire raid force is in zone on timed encounters just seams like a bad idea waiting to happen.
 
Would be extremely funny to see the after video's of these fights tho... Crews like Ringers swooping in on <insert random guild> that has newly broken into TurRuj and are trying to do their very first Tar'Loc and such :p

You missed the point. This would not be used steal claims, but only to settel those in question. This problem only arises when two guild race to a zone at the same time or when a guild tries to squat and wait for more people to log in. If a guild is already raiding then there is no claim question to be solved. See FAQ question #3.
 
Here is a second idea and I know the code for this particular idea is already in the game. Use the code that is used to check eternal well flags in a raid ToT at the second elemental to check raid numbers at the entrance to each raid zone. A mob that is hailed to claim a wing with a numbers check. Not enough people and, "Though Shall Not Pass!" Perhaps the mob could be coded to repop in 30 minutes if no trash behind it has been killed in that amount of time. If a mob behind it has been killed, then it does not respawn.
 
@Ryst Battle royale would be amusing as hell, though a champion style 1 v 1 duel would be simpler IMO. Unfortunately, not really viable unless PvP gets balanced though.

So, here are my questions/concerns about the clarified policy:
  1. How is claim established for encounters/zones with no trash clear (e.g., Temple of Elael), when a zone has a free clear (e.g., someone has been farming opuses in Spires and has left a free clear to a boss), or when killing trash locks in a timed encounter (e.g., Ok'Tar)?

    My old understanding (of 6 in zone + engage in 30) easily answered this question, now I have no idea how to answer it.

  2. How does one know if a claim has been established? Personally, I'd like to believe raid leaders would be capable of sorting it out with a conversation like this:

    Interloper: "Hey I see you have 6 in zone, have you made progress in the zone?"
    Guy in Zone: "Yeah we killed a trash mob 10 minutes ago."
    Interloper: "Okay, good luck, we'll move on."

    But... there's two main problems here. First, the raid leaders have to trust each other -- and there is a strong incentive for the Guy in Zone to lie. And second, it seems like in 100% of situations where the Interloper really wants whatever target they're after, it would be better for them to leapfrog in, kill something, state that they didn't believe claim was established, and let a GM sort things out. Overall it seems like dickish play is encouraged?

  3. How does this policy work in Tur'ruj?

    Hypothetical: on-tier guild A finds Tar'Loc up, they have 15 in zone and 3 who crashed on zone in (cuz Tur'ruj). They're waiting for those last 3 before engaging. Over-tier (but in need of opuses) guild B zones into Tur'ruj with a force capable of killing Tar'Loc, they ignore tells from guild A and move to engage.

    My understanding is that at this point guild A has no claim (no progress has been made) and must decide to either (1) engage Tar'Loc with 15, or (2) let guild B take claim. Let's assume that guild A has read the clarified rules and engages Tar'Loc, killing something to establish claim, and then purposely wipes since they would rather do the fight with 18. Following the letter of the rule guild A has claim, so guild B moves on.

    Does anyone else think that forcing a raid to wipe in order to establish a claim is bad?
 
Last edited:
We were realy not trying to cause any issues, just clarify the policy so that there would not be any issues moving forward.

I like clarification, clarification is good. However, the comma and/or issue you pointed out does significantly effect how the policy reads.

When I parse out the old and clarified policy (see yellow vs blue/pink) here is what I see:

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.

Claim if:
6 people present
Unless:
nothing has been done, and
nothing continues to be done for 30 mins from time of dispute
Interpretation: claim occurs when 6 present and the timer to "do something" is 30 mins from time of dispute.

To claim a wing/zone/encounter, you need 6 people present and be actively killing. Once you have begun clearing, if you stop and there is a dispute, you have 30 minutes to resume killing or you can lose your claim.

Claim if:
6 people present
actively killing
Unless:
you stop
and do not continue for 30 mins from time of dispute
Interpretation: claim occurs when 6 present and actively killing, 30 minute dispute timer when killing stops.

Maybe the clarified version is how it has always been enforced and effectively nothing is different. However to state that the rule (as written) hasn't changed strikes me as incorrect. I don't agree with the tinfoiling going on, but I totally get where it's coming from.
 
I think the 30 minutes if nothing has been done thing has to be cut down to 20 minutes. There have been a few times where people just sit around for 29 minutes and kill 1 mob while friends come to save the day. having it be 19 minutes between pulls will make it so they have to eventually get to a harder mob faster.
 
What happens if it's a free clear to a mob and nobody gets a kill at all because guild A keeps wiping?
They have 30 minutes to kill or forfeit?

There's just so many what ifs that make this rule no good. First with 6 in zone and an engagement within 30 mins is the only rule that would really make sense and simplify everything. You can easily screenshot when someone has 6. If someone debates it, it's easy for a GM to check the log. 30 mins gives a guild time to form and buff and engage. I don't agree with squatting, but a guild shouldn't be encouraged to leapfrog another guild if they are forming in a raid zone vs. At tables or athica or whatever. So many holes in this clarified rule that leave so many opportunities for it to be taken advantage of. The old wording and understanding of the rule worked well. It was just the GM's not being on the same page about it, that made it confusing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom