Claim System + Call for Help Code = Win

[Frost]

There's a massive difference between "Losing claim for a fraction of a second due to one person getting charmed, killed, DC'd, warped, etc etc etc..." and "Your alliance has completely and totally been annihilated". And this thread is discussing the former, and it's a red herring to introduce the latter.

I also understand that Zombie'ing sucks for those who are watching it happen... But just go do something else... If they're "blocking your content" then your 'stealing the mob' is "blocking their content"; with the added caveat that the stealers didn't earn the pop set... Not everyone is on the same level. Some people are still learning how to do certain things. Rage timer is there for a reason, as stated previously. There's no reason players can't be civil in those situations, and there's no reason players shouldn't be punished for not being civil in those situations.

Speaking of civility, can we make this a discussion?
I like the differing views, even if I don't agree, but some of the back-and-forth here is a little childish. In short, drop the personal attacks please.

[Greatguardian]

There's a massive difference between "Losing claim for a fraction of a second due to one person getting charmed, killed, DC'd, warped, etc etc etc..." and "Your alliance has completely and totally been annihilated". And this thread is discussing the former, and it's a red herring to introduce the latter.

I also understand that Zombie'ing sucks for those who are watching it happen... But just go do something else... If they're "blocking your content" then your 'stealing the mob' is "blocking their content"; with the added caveat that the stealers didn't earn the pop set... Not everyone is on the same level. Some people are still learning how to do certain things. Rage timer is there for a reason, as stated previously. There's no reason players can't be civil in those situations, and there's no reason players shouldn't be punished for not being civil in those situations.

Speaking of civility, can we make this a discussion?
I like the differing views, even if I don't agree, but some of the back-and-forth here is a little childish. In short, drop the personal attacks please.

It is absolutely not difficult to shift claim to someone who is not in any danger of dying if the person who has sole claim is about to do so, or is about to be charmed. This is the point for a lot of people. Understanding how systems work and acting on that understanding is an important part of the game. The claim system is just another one of those systems. Its workings are very simple and predictable. The opus is on the player to take the appropriate action when a charm, death, or disengage happens or is imminent.

[Frost]

It is absolutely not difficult to shift claim to someone who is not in any danger of dying if the person who has sole claim is about to do so, or is about to be charmed. This is the point for a lot of people. Understanding how systems work and acting on that understanding is an important part of the game. The claim system is just another one of those systems. Its workings are very simple and predictable. The opus is on the player to take the appropriate action when a charm, death, or disengage happens or is imminent.

I understand that you're on the side of the argument on the bias that "If it's in the game this way, then it's intentional" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But what is the practical application of having a monster go unclaimed when someone disconnects? Or when one person out of eighteen dies to an instant death move? Or a ranger Weaponskills and the mob is kited out of range? Etc.

When a group of people is in full control of a mob, and it goes unclaimed, that's an error.

This game is you against the environment the game was developed under the premise of teamwork; with the players on one side of the line, and the monster hoardes etc, on the other. At no point was the game ever intended to be players stealing from one another. Players aren't an "unfortunate environmental circumstance"... Defending a glitch as an intended dynamic when it goes contrary to the general theme and presentation of a game is faulty thinking.

It's like playing poker and somehow getting 2 Ace of Spades in your hand from a fresh deck. You don't just 'keep going' and revel in your luck... You stop, fix the error, and move on.

[Greatguardian]

I understand that you're on the side of the argument on the bias that "If it's in the game this way, then it's intentional" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But what is the practical application of having a monster go unclaimed when someone disconnects? Or when one person out of eighteen dies to an instant death move? Or a ranger Weaponskills and the mob is kited out of range? Etc.

When a group of people is in full control of a mob, and it goes unclaimed, that's an error.

This game is you against the environment the game was developed under the premise of teamwork; with the players on one side of the line, and the monster hoardes etc, on the other. At no point was the game ever intended to be players stealing from one another. Players aren't an "unfortunate environmental circumstance"... Defending a glitch as an intended dynamic when it goes contrary to the general theme and presentation of a game is faulty thinking.

It's like playing poker and somehow getting 2 Ace of Spades in your hand from a fresh deck. You don't just 'keep going' and revel in your luck... You stop, fix the error, and move on.

Having a monster go unclaimed when a person disconnects or dies is simply a side-effect of the much more fundamental rule of claiming. If you disengage the monster, for any reason, while you have sole claim over it, the monster goes white. If you die? You disengage. If you disconnect? You disengage. If you zone? You disengage. If you go out of range? You disengage.

Can it happen that the person with sole claim disconnects and a monster goes white? Yes. Should it ever? Absolutely not. Why? Because characters stay in the game with a red dot for a minimum of 30 seconds after a player has disconnected from the server. That 30 seconds should always be more than sufficient for any other member of the player's party to exert sole claim over the monster. If the disconnecting player is a DD that is attacking the mob (and continuing to automatically do so while disconnecting), move the NM away from said disconnecting DD so that they do not have the opportunity to reassert claim.

Can it happen when a single person in an alliance of 18 dies? Yes. Should it happen? Realistically, no, not unless said person was the only melee engaged on the NM (as auto-attacking a monster is the easiest/fastest way to constantly reassert sole claim). If they were, for some reason, the only melee engaged on the monster, there is still a window in which the 17 mages/others should be reasserting their claim before the monster goes white. This is not an instantaneous process. It is no more difficult than stunning a TP move (in fact, it is easier compared to most TP moves).

You assert that this is a glitch. I assert that everything is working 100% as intended. Alliances never, ever have claim over a monster. One person has claim over a monster at any given time, and the rest of his alliance is able to act on his monster because they are in a party with him. When the player who currently has claim disengages for any reason, claim is in flux for 1-2 seconds. When no one in the player's group acts, claim is forfeit. Once claim is forfeit, anyone in the player's group can reclaim with a single action. As an anti-steal measure, it requires 2 consecutive actions for any outside party to take claim (unless, of course, they were already on the hate list by curing the original party or somesuch).

There is no exploit happening. There is no glitch. The system is working 100% as intended. You forfeit claim when you disengage the monster you have claim over, and no one else on the hate list steps up to reclaim the forfeited claim.

[Alhanelem]

There's a massive difference between "Losing claim for a fraction of a second due to one person getting charmed, killed, DC'd, warped, etc etc etc..." and "Your alliance has completely and totally been annihilated".

I agree, this thread is not offering a good solution to the problem though.

I also understand that Zombie'ing sucks for those who are watching it happen... But just go do something else... If they're "blocking your content" then your 'stealing the mob' is "blocking their content"; with the added caveat that the stealers didn't earn the pop set... Not everyone is on the same level. Some people are still learning how to do certain things. Rage timer is there for a reason, as stated previously. There's no reason players can't be civil in those situations, and there's no reason players shouldn't be punished for not being civil in those situations.

Speaking of civility, can we make this a discussion?
I like the differing views, even if I don't agree, but some of the back-and-forth here is a little childish. In short, drop the personal attacks please.

Both a fighting group and a waiting group should be having some consideration for each other. Zombie behavior may or may not work (it usually doesn't) and takes a long time. Especially if the area is crowded, you are wasting other people's time on the off chance that if you die enough times, you might be able to get it killed. In this case, the fighting group really should step aside for the waiting group. At the same time, the waiting group should be polite and civil, and either offer to help or otherwise work out a solution with the first group. If one or the other is being uncooperative though, there is little room for choice. No one likes waiting around for what might be a vain attempt (An LS I was in missed a Tiamat pull once and we sat there for over 7 hours while the group that claimed was constantly dying and doing little damage), and there are rules in the code of conduct that govern this. If a GM determines that a group is taking an unreasonable amount of time or has not made much/any progress, they will give another group the green light to go ahead and take it.

[Frost]

[...]If a GM determines that a group is taking an unreasonable amount of time or has not made much/any progress, they will give another group the green light to go ahead and take it.

There you go, you solved your side of the debate on zombie'ing. Which is not the problem being presented in this thread.

As for what's actually being presented, leaving the monster claimed to the group until everyone is dead is a good solution. If they take long enough to rage the mob then that solution is enacted forcefully on the players.

[Akujima]

I also understand that Zombie'ing sucks for those who are watching it happen... But just go do something else... If they're "blocking your content" then your 'stealing the mob' is "blocking their content"; with the added caveat that the stealers didn't earn the pop set... Not everyone is on the same level. Some people are still learning how to do certain things. Rage timer is there for a reason, as stated previously. There's no reason players can't be civil in those situations, and there's no reason players shouldn't be punished for not being civil in those situations.

Bold part: This is what you actually have to convince the naysayers about. But it will be damn difficult to do so, as their entire philosophy and way of life is based on that one statement. They are "good" only because other people "suck".

[Yugl]

I also understand that Zombie'ing sucks for those who are watching it happen... But just go do something else... If they're "blocking your content" then your 'stealing the mob' is "blocking their content"; with the added caveat that the stealers didn't earn the pop set... Not everyone is on the same level. Some people are still learning how to do certain things. Rage timer is there for a reason, as stated previously. There's no reason players can't be civil in those situations, and there's no reason players shouldn't be punished for not being civil in those situations.

Or you could fix both problems if you're going to fix one. Sounds like the unbiased solution to me!

[Frost]

Or you could fix both problems if you're going to fix one. Sounds like the unbiased solution to me!

What's the 'other' problem, as as per your use of "both"? Zombie'ing?

The Zombie'ing problem is already "Fixed" with rage timers. And while I agree some of the timers are a little too long... They are such, I can imagine, because everyones' idea of "a reasonable amount of time" is different, and they ere on the side of 'longer' so that newer players would get a decent chance to kill something they might be unfamiliar with.

Any way you cut it, the Zombie'ing problem isn't a problem with the people zombie'ing, so much as it it with the impatient people watching it. It's why we are seeing these thefts. People think they are the solution to that problem, and just take the mob at whatever point in the fight they feel justified. I'm just as impatient as the next guy, but luckily I got plenty of other things I can do that to obsess over one mob to a point of internet thugery.

Which brings me to my next point: Irony.

I find it ironic reading about a lot of you folks talking of your days sitting at HNM camps and this and that...

Patient bunch of folks you are....

Being able to sit at three camps a day up to 3 hours per camp....

Or for three days waiting for Tiamat....

And yet... You can't find it in yourselves to sit and let some group fight a mob that at worst, has a ten minute respawn, and fifteen, to thirty, to sixty minutes before it rages and kills someone?

C'mon....