Raid policy thread clarification

[DookeyKing]

The only way to avoid all of the lawyering is with a hard, fixed rule with hard, fixed numbers. For instance:first to twelve claims a zone and they have 30 minutes to assemble a force numerically capable of killing a boss. The whole "capable force" business is nonsense because killing trash is not the reason for claiming a raid zone.

 

[Xach]

The whole "capable force" business is nonsense because killing trash is not the reason for claiming a raid zone.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far. Almost every raid zone has important drops that come from the trash that don't necessarily take twelve people to kill.

 

[wolfwalkerEci]

With a few exceptions the "trash" drops in most zones are worthless. Most of the issues we are seeing revolve around thaz / ToT and Im sorry but 12 people just hanging out doesnt prove a whole hell of a lot. *However* if they are activly clearing trash, IE not 1 trash mob every 30min, then give them the zone. They will probally fill out by the time they near the boss.

 

[smadcatc]

With a few exceptions the "trash" drops in most zones are worthless. Most of the issues we are seeing revolve around thaz / ToT and Im sorry but 12 people just hanging out doesnt prove a whole hell of a lot. *However* if they are activly clearing trash, IE not 1 trash mob every 30min, then give them the zone. They will probally fill out by the time they near the boss.

12 people hanging out = claim, at least that's the way rules stand now. First to 12 gets claim, regardless of what that 12 is doing. At least that's how I interpret the rules given recent rulings.

 

[robopirateninja]

Hilariously, thaz and tot are the zones with the best and most important reasons to farm trash, although depending on the exact nature of that PoF jewelry (I dont actually know) it may be up there too.

A lot of zones have trash drops that are worthwhile though, plane of air and plane of water both had cool drops for int casters leveling up as I recall (the gear i paid most attention to), and since the addition of quests that require farming rad zones it would be super gay to kick out people working on quests because a larger group wants theirs instead.

In the situation this is about neither was just hanging out, GS just waited to make sure they had a claim before engaging. Holding that against them would be retarded in several ways.

 

[Lithan]

This is always a problem, seems handled pretty well here. I remember back right after epics were done, I did a raid with some former OOBS guys and many nonguildeds (OOBS had, I believe, 5 man'ed both naggy and vox at that point). We had low teens numbers (2 groups and a solo if I recall) We killed everything up to vox chamber and were buffing for kill when LoD summon trained her on us, then killed her with 10 guys. The ruling on Inny(the server) at the time was kill giants and you get dragon until you give up or GM decides you've tried enough times and boots ya. (They also had this rule of 12 in place, but it was something of an unofficial guideline for the guides to keep a necro from soloing nag's giants for his guild for a few hrs before spawn) We petitioned. Guide told us and I quote. "You weren't there in force, you could kill the giants but couldn't have taken Vox." I had killed her a few times before that with two groups and knew that was bull. So naturally I ask my buddy in LoD what's going on. He tells me that LoD had actually arranged with the Guide earlier that they were gonna take the dragon when we wiped and he had been in zone the whole time to watch them train us.

Consider yourselves lucky. Guides are dicks.

 

[Thinkmeats]

In any case, I've been too inflammatory and angry and aggressive to even make anyone want to agree with me, so I'm going to stop now.

It's not your inflammation (teehee) or your aggression, it's the huge number of disconnected argument-fragments you've made. You've posted a tremendous amount in this thread without really connecting your words to any overarching argument or goal. You just kind of showed up in this thread with some possibly-consistent internal belief based on some poair conflict in the past, then promptly set about the business of quoting everyone.

It's very hard for people to agree *or* disagree meaningfully with that.

 

[Nodnal]

Manguadi is the only one attempting lawyering and he's not good at it. It's not actually that much of a problem.



It's not your inflammation (teehee) or your aggression, it's the huge number of disconnected argument-fragments you've made. You've posted a tremendous amount in this thread without really connecting your words to any overarching argument or goal. You just kind of showed up in this thread with some possibly-consistent internal belief based on some poair conflict in the past, then promptly set about the business of quoting everyone.

It's very hard for people to agree *or* disagree meaningfully with that.

I think people have just been a bit confused with the inconsistency in rulings lately (just with policy in general). I know the staff doesn't do it intentionally, but every staff member solves issues in what they think is the right solution to a given problem, as most issues on SoD aren't so cut and dry. I think people want a clear defined rule set, not to abuse it like so many people think, but because they don't want to feel like they are getting the short end of the stick on an issue that is resolved to their dissatisfaction. I think some staff may be too worried, that with an explicit defined rule set, that players will find ways to "exploit" it, but honestly, if that occurs, you can just punish the people who actually do it, instead of worrying about those who may.

 

[Allielyn]

I think people have just been a bit confused with the inconsistency in rulings lately (just with policy in general). I know the staff doesn't do it intentionally, but every staff member solves issues in what they think is the right solution to a given problem, as most issues on SoD aren't so cut and dry. I think people want a clear defined rule set, not to abuse it like so many people think, but because they don't want to feel like they are getting the short end of the stick on an issue that is resolved to their dissatisfaction. I think some staff may be too worried, that with an explicit defined rule set, that players will find ways to "exploit" it, but honestly, if that occurs, you can just punish the people who actually do it, instead of worrying about those who may.

Generally, staff makes very consistent decisions. Unfortunately, as you say, every situation isn't cut and dry, and most players only hear or see one biased side of the story: this is the source of most policy-angst among players, along with the accompanying assumption that rulings are somehow not consistent.

Making the rulebook resemble tax code does little but define where the loopholes are, encouraging the hardcore players and the min/maxx'ers to use them. In the end, it doesn't solve the above problem - that every situation isn't cut and dry, and that most players only hear (or see) one side of the story.

There is very little the staff can do about this other than make good consistent rulings, hope that the players see our effort and learn to trust us, and provide options for appealing unfair rulings. The fact that I get very few of the latter tells me we're doing a good job =).

 

[jules4099]

Generally, staff makes very consistent decisions.

And I think people seem to lose sight of that. A lot of players seem to be harping on this one bit of inconsistency, but if you step back and contrast it to the staggering number of issues that get handled correctly, I'd say it pales in comparison.

Damn, and I told myself I would not post in this thread. Oh well.