Claim System + Call for Help Code = Win

[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.