So resetting's against the rules now?

trivialities arent worth it is all I can say, there are far more important things to bother with then going to report a babboon for stealing your banana that anyway nobody will ever do anything about it and that probably the time spent in reporting could have given you instead of one banana a whole bunch of them. It is also kind of hypocrital to ban someone for something that the game allows to do. People resetting arent abusing or cheating they are simply using a *tool* that programers (SE) allowed to be used (since is nto removed) right?.. so how can you say they should be banned??? is not forbidden is left there....see my point ? Until rules are CLEARLY stated and NOT as said, left to the *appreciation (subjective at it)* to the GM, appreciation that may differ from one GM to the other and also a GM may know the person that is involved be great friend and so never be bothered to take actions, you know friends and all that, until clarity and actions clearly taken visible at it and final, all these posts, including mine, are totally childish and useless...

I suggest people that dont agree with it not to do it, and find somethign else, and the rest do it their heart content.

I have that vision in my mind, two groups of players that reset each other's target constantly, imagine the lenght of the fight ? how dumb!!

Mei

e.g my post about grey zones and interpretations ....rules arent clear for a reason...they allow all AND nothing.

Mei

The early pull argument goes back to the "do only what you would like done to you".

If you pull before the swarm get there, then don't expect others to wait for you when a hunt is called.
Even during peak time, it's not hard to get full credit in a party of WAR's and WHM's, without killing the mark in 2 seconds.
If you find yourself fighting for full credit even when the whole server of hunters is killing a mark, then it might be an idea to re-evaluate your hunt strategy.

Early pulls are a greedy & selfish way to do hunts. Our server has a fantastic way of dealing with this content, which includes a majority of the server that are hunting on a single teamspeak. Those that aren't, are usually in a party with someone who is.

Mark is found > broadcasted over the 8x LS's that are linked to the TS, and is also called over TS. A leader calls a reasonable pull time, waits for everyone to get there and pulls.
Repeated early pullers are blisted/banned from TS - effectively forcing them to fend for themselves. Sounds harsh but the system works most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

The main issue is that the GM giving us replies has no clue what the word "intent" means when used as an adjective. He contradicts himself on several posts because of this and it just makes everything he says confusing and misleading.
Intent (adj.) : resolved or determined to do (something).
another definition of intent: The thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose
example from Merriam-Webster: She thinks I'm trying to make things difficult for her, but that's not my intent.

---

The question of intent doesn't apply to *why* you reset the mob, but whether or not you deliberately reset it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

The question of intent doesn't apply to *why* you reset the mob, but whether or not you deliberately reset it.

---

This so much.

Was your intent to reset the mob. They don't care why you reset the mob, the fact is you reset a mob on purpose that someone else was fighting and as such, you disrupted their gameplay. That's the intent. Not your moral reasons behind why you did it. If they report you for disrupting their gameplay, expect an infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

I thought the same thing based off the first few things the GM said, but that isn't the case. He basically replied to me and said that resetting at all is punishable if anyone is affected by it, regardless of actual intent. He worded it so cryptically though that I still might be wrong IDK

---

See the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

The question of intent doesn't apply to *why* you reset the mob, but whether or not you deliberately reset it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkrateia

by intentionally resetting a hunt mark, you have chosen to interfere with the game play of other customers.

---

GMs do not care if you reset a mob in good faith to allow 30 more people to get credit, if your reset caused even one individual to lose their credit, you are grief-ing said individual and therefore can be investigated. Reset at your own peril.

[EDIT] Also this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkrateia

The intent to disrupt another customer's game play does not require that the attempt to disrupt another customer's game play was successful. This could still be reported and investigated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghishlain

See the following:




GMs do not care if you reset a mob in good faith to allow 30 more people to get credit, if your reset caused even one individual to lose their credit, you are grief-ing said individual and therefore can be investigated. Reset at your own peril.

---

From his last post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkrateia

actions determined to be taken with the intent of disrupting the game play of others can be reported as a grief tactic...

---

He's implying that the intent needs to be to disrupt, not whether or not you reset it by mistake. He also implies that things that happen as side effects of resetting are intent, which goes against the meaning of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

From his last post:


He's implying that the intent needs to be to disrupt, not whether or not you reset it by mistake. He also implies that things that happen as side effects of resetting are intent, which goes against the meaning of the word.

---

Seriously man, you need to get past this. Here and on reddit. The intent is if you intended to reset the mob because that in itself would disrupt the gameplay of those already fighting it. The reason behind the reset is not the intent they care about. Why is this so hard for you to understand. So many people have tried to explain it to you both here and on reddit.

If you want to keep resetting marks, go for it.. But if you get an infraction against your account for it, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

Seriously man, you need to get past this. Here and on reddit. The intent is if you intended to reset the mob because that in itself would disrupt the gameplay of those already fighting it. The reason behind the reset is not the intent they care about. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

---

Probably because the fact that it is wrong and I like to stand up for things I believe are right. Saying that resetting a mob disrupts the gameplay de facto is an opinion, and one that is taking a side in the morality of resets when the whole point of the GM's post was to try and say that morality isn't a factor which is a contradiction. If I reset a hunt on my server and no one is "disrupted" how would that be causing a disruption? It wouldn't. By taking your stance you're assuming that 100% of the time a reset is made that someone is now not getting the credit they would have earned previously, which is not true, Cory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Saying that resetting a mob disrupts the gameplay de facto is an opinion,

---

In this case it's not an opinion, though. It's a GM telling us that resetting elite hunt marks falls into the category of disrupting other players' gameplay and as per the ToS can be punished accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

In this case it's not an opinion, though. It's a GM telling you that resetting elite hunt marks falls into the category of disrupting other players' gameplay and as per the ToS can be punished accordingly.

---

It is an opinion though, it's the GM's opinion which I'm saying is wrong and biased. They are people too, and they (GMs) have different opinions, and from my PoV it doesn't have anything to do with breaking the ToS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

From his last post:


He's implying that the intent needs to be to disrupt, not whether or not you reset it by mistake. He also implies that things that happen as side effects of resetting are intent, which goes against the meaning of the word.

---

Now I really think you're just a giant troll, but I'll bite because I honestly think you're just a misguided self-righteous player of justice who feels they are above the ToS due to acting "for the greater good".

Intent: the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose
Your intent was to reset the mob, to allow X additional players to get credit for a hunt mark.

Disrupt: to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way : to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something)
By resetting the mob, you have now willfully disrupted (keywords) the game play of every individual at the mark at this present time. The majority of players will continue to get full contribution, but select individuals will not due to varying circumstances.

However, this leads to the GM line:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkrateia

The intent to disrupt another customer's game play does not require that the attempt to disrupt another customer's game play was successful. This could still be reported and investigated.

---

In theory, if there are 100 players at a mark, you disrupted those 100 players by resetting the mark. Every single player there can report you for disruption of their game play.

No. That's not what I'm saying.

If you reset a mob and no one complains then yeah there is no issue whatsoever. But, if you reset a mob that someone was already fighting and that said person puts a complaint in against you for it, then don't expect your moral reasoning behind why you chose to reset the mob to save you from an infraction because you chose to disrupt their gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

It is an opinion though, it's the GM's opinion which I'm saying is wrong and biased. They are people too, and they (GMs) have different opinions, and from my PoV it doesn't have anything to do with breaking the ToS.

---

Even if you're going to define it as an opinion, in this case his matters and ours really doesn't. We can sit here and talk about it until we're all blue in the face, but at the end of the day it doesn't change what the rules are or how the GM's interpret them. GM's enforce the rules. Players abide by them or face the consequences.

the word *intend* means a deliberate will of doing something...who is to decide it is or wasnt deliberate ? just becasue someone says it was disturbing him or her isnt necesseraly the truth either right? to go and find out IF it was the truth or not requires manpower to go and *physically* check what happened at the moment it has been said it happened....you really think SE has that much manpower to do this ? it may be done once in a while to keep people happy so that they can say something was done and attest of it but in all honestly you think is done all the tiem ? ...what GM said is clear crystal it is said that the GM will make the call IF he (GM) deems that the intend was malicious no matter what your TRUE motives behind it were...his decision is final IF GM decides to look into it...to give so much power to one person to decide *life* and *death* of a player is ...wrong...rules should clearly state....ANY resetting will be sanctioned and player banned for ever.. Here whether is intentional, or not is beyond the point and is clear. You reset the mob you are banned...there cannot be any mistake if said mob takes you for target...and you are alone well tough luck...trust me there would be far less shoutings and far more *normal* and *fair* fights ..and many more deaths..*Lol*

People really, you should really stop these blabla for something that is NOT worth the effort....it is *just* a game...taking it too seriously is what destroys this game for that matter any games...enjoy the game...if someone resets well that someone is desperate enough to do so...i suggest you shrug it off yours houlders and move onto something else. Your day wont end with this and tomorrow you wont feel any different.

Mei

Please don't reset a hunt target I've been putting full effort into getting credit for. =/

Literally none of you are even getting the point I'm making about how intent works because of your blinders. I see where you are coming from in this, I truly do, my arguments are for the sake of stopping a blanketed biased view of how resets should be handled though and because of your own feelings about it going into this you fail to see the problems I'm trying to address. There is literally no point in talking about this to people who won't listen so I'll just continue to play how I think is right and leave you all to your complaining about things here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eckhart

What you are not getting ,is that at the end of the day, people like me, who have not much time to play on a daily basis, want our play time to COUNT.

Getting our marks reset by the horde time and time again it's infuriating, and as stated, it's reportable. I don't care if you think us are just talking high about what's morally wrong or right, atm in game there's a problem and sweeping it under the rug is not a solution while we wait for a system fix.

---

Implying I don't understand the plight of the casual player is cute, but it seems you didn't really read the whole of my posts on this thread. If you did, you would see that I do realize that resetting is infuriating to some players and I don't recommend doing that. There are ways and rules of conduct people have adopted in game to make your time count, at least until SE finds a technical way of dealing with this issue, if they ever do. I've described some of those ways too.

What I tried to bring to the table is that although having philosophical discussions about all these moral and ethical opposites can be fun, people tend to not want to meet in the middle. I think that's not very useful and the focus should be on discussing practical solutions where we all do somewhat meet in the middle, whether that comes from SE, or our own in-game initiatives. That's not sweeping anything under the rug - it's just hoping people would focus on solutions instead of butting heads on empirical notions. Many posters on this thread have taken that approach and that's cool. I hope this clears up my position.

you are RIGHT Apple in your words, I didnt comment on those becasue that is obviously true... my concern is else..my concern is in giving GM the *RIGHT* to decide and sanction based on THEIR sole discretion ...nothing guarantees that they are impartial AND fair... this is why rules need to be claer cut crystal but doing that would force SE, for that matter any companies, to have the manpower that allows enforcing the rules and clearly that is not something that is wanted.

I say it again, you are right, totally, but alas, in the current situation of the game and because things have been too far, neither you or me can do something, I suggest we both do live up what we bellieve to be right and fair, in my case..stay far away from hunts UNLESS I accidentally stumble on one.

Mei

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Literally none of you are even getting the point I'm making about how intent works because of your blinders. I see where you are coming from in this, I truly do, my arguments are for the sake of stopping a blanketed biased view of how resets should be handled though and because of your own feelings about it going into this you fail to see the problems I'm trying to address. There is literally no point in talking about this to people who won't listen so I'll just continue to play how I think is right and leave you all to your complaining about things here.

---

Do you realise you just described exactly what you are doing yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

Do you realise you just described exactly what you are doing yourself?

---

No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm telling you why I think you're wrong. My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION. The disruption is a possible side effect. It was also the opinion of this particular GM that early pulling was not disruption, which I disagree with as well.

Side effects =/= intentions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Literally none of you are even getting the point I'm making about how intent works because of your blinders. I see where you are coming from in this, I truly do, my arguments are for the sake of stopping a blanketed biased view of how resets should be handled though and because of your own feelings about it going into this you fail to see the problems I'm trying to address. There is literally no point in talking about this to people who won't listen so I'll just continue to play how I think is right and leave you all to your complaining about things here.

---

Your opinion is "resets are good" because it can help 50 additional players get credit. I can respect that and your good intentions on that. However, you are blinded if you think EVERYONE can rebuild their contribution effectively if a mob is reset. Varying circumstances and issues will arise that will invariable prevent some individuals from rebuilding their contribution. You might accept this is good anyway since the good of 50 > the good of 5.

However, the GMs cannot see that on the same level because they have to treat every customer equally. If your actions of reset even cause one individual to lose credit, and you are reported for it, the GMs will need to act upon. In order to prevent the resource use of this, the GMs would ask you to NOT RESET MARKS.

As mentioned earlier by Ashkendor, we can argue until our faces turn blue, but in my opinion you have the blinders that are covered in intent you want to help the greater good (admirable) but causes more headache and grief for the GM team in the process.

Is the implementation of hunts a flawed system? Yes. However, the server taking matters into their own hands and determining "what is right for everyone" only increases the headaches GMs have to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeiUshu

my concern is in giving GM the *RIGHT* to decide and sanction based on THEIR sole discretion ...nothing guarantees that they are impartial AND fair...

---

They have their own bosses that they report to and their own standards to follow. If they handle things poorly, they get evaluated as they would at any job. At the end of the day, the GM works for SE and we do not. The GM has the ability to act on their interpretation of the rules. We can interpret all day but it comes down to nothing more than pages and pages of debate. Whether or not we think it's correct or fair is pretty much immaterial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION.

---

According to the GM, it absolutely is though. He/she even went as far as to say that disruption does not have to be successful in order to be considered as such. Even if you don't manage to reset the mob, it's still considered to be disruption simply because you deliberately attempted to do so. Even if everyone still gets full credit for it, it's still considered disruption. All of us understand that your intent is not to take seals away from the people already fighting the mark, but the fact is it has happened numerous times as a side-effect of the resets.

I've been skimming his thread, mostly looking for Dev comments / posts.

I want to give a big Thank You to Enkrateia for the clarity (s)he has provided (I'm on page 16 when I stopped reading)

Arguments have been made that this pits the "Rights of the Few" (who found it, or are solo/low manning the content) VS the "needs of the many" (hunt LS/FC/Friends/server, who are trying to collect Allied Seals)

Given my experience with hunts, these seem to be the Points to take away at this time.

• Hunting Elite Marks has great potential for character advancement.
• This advancement can be shared with almost an entire server at a time.
• People hunting for advancement (typically) wish to share this, assisting the entire server at a time, instead of a few people.
• Many of these people feel they are entitled to this, or that 'sharing' is the right thing to do.
• This sense of entitlement is false.
• A Characters progression does not hinge upon their obtainment of full completion for every Elite Mark ever spawned.
• Pulling Early does not actually disrupt game play for people hunting marks, it is just an inconvenience.
  disrupt - interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.
  Event = killing an Elite Mark. Resetting prevents a player currently attacking an elite Mark from killing it.
  Pulling Early prevents characters en route from attacking. It doesn't disrupt the event, it prevents the event.
• Players should not actually feel required to wait for other people or risk not getting full credit.
• Players who die, or get slept, petrified, etc, during a fight with Elite Marks, lose credit when a Mark is reset.
• There are many situations where this results in 0 credit after a mark is reset.
• This loss of credit should be avoided a all cost, unless the only victims of this loss agree and accept the loss.
• This should should not be forced upon unwilling players/individuals.

As players, we should encourage people to wait and share the Elite Marks, and yet understand we are not entitled to this. I am guilty as referring to people who pull early / fight solo with derogatory sentiments myself - but I do understand I am not entitled to take part in the fight. The big difference is, if we wait, and work together as a community, the whole community gets to advance. If you join a full party, most fights, as long as every member of the party hits the mob a few times, you will all get full credit. When that is understood, the question to ask yourself is, why wouldn't you wait? I can't seem to come up with a solution, that doesn't circle back to the person being selfish - but that is my problem to deal with, not theirs.

*****
To Address a different style of intended reset, which I would hope the GM's would generally not consider Griefing:
*****
Enkrateia Already sated that (s)he does not like to deal with hypthetical situations. So I expect this to not be 'solved' by a GM unless the scenario is reported, and will be handled by a GM, and I will agree with whatever conclusion a GM comes to.

Scenario: Party A Finds hunt mark. Party A calls out in the area, accross FC, and linkshells, waits a few minutes, and Party B Shows up, but not a lot of people / they don't have confirmation that other people are actually on the way.

Party A pulls the monster, and they begin to fight. Party B joins in.

party A then see's shouts in zone, and realize that they are killing the monster quickly, the party opts to reset to allow other people to get there. Party A then resets. Party B reports Party A for Griefing.

I would hope, that the GM's would side more often than not, with the party who found the elite mark, regardless of the outcome. I feel that if anybody is right or wrong, it should more often than not go to the people who located the mark and started the fight.

Note that the scenario changes very quickly, if Party B also found without assistance and/or started the fight. The example hinges upon people who find the mark without assistance, and start the fight on their own. These requirements also make this a very rare circumstance.

I will continue to operate in this manner (if I find / pull a mark, and then opt to reset.) unless a GM communicates with me directly to warn me or indicate I should not, and I will not be resetting any monsters that I did not find on my own, and pull myself.

There is no need to reply to or grief me in this thread, as I probably won't end up finding i again to continue to discuss, I just hope that my opinions bring clarity to my colleagues who are hunting for the communities sake, so that we do not suffer and get each other banned etc for breaching ToS.

As the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghishlain

Your opinion is "resets are good" because it can help 50 additional players get credit....

---

And pulling early could cause 50 people to lose credit as well. It was the opinion of this GM that the act of early pulling is not disruption, but since the ToS are not clearly defined I see it as more disruptive to deny 50 people mark points than 5 people mark points. This is my interpretation and there is no reason for it to be any less valid than your interpretation. 50 GM reports for harassment > 5 reports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm telling you why I think you're wrong. My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION. The disruption is a possible side effect. It was also the opinion of this particular GM that early pulling was not disruption, which I disagree with as well.

Side effects =/= intentions

---

I get what you're saying as well. And I also agree that your intention was not to disrupt others. However, your intent WAS TO RESET the mark which had the flow on affect of disrupting someone else's gameplay. Intent to reset is the key here, not intent to disrupt. The fact that you did something on purpose, that resulted in another players gameplay being disrupted gives them the right to report you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

I get what you're saying as well. And I also agree that your intention was not to disrupt others. However, your intent WAS TO RESET the mark which had the flow on affect of disrupting someone else's gameplay. Intent to reset is the key here, not intent to disrupt. The fact that you did something on purpose, that resulted in another players gameplay being disrupted gives them the right to report you.

---

Actually intent to disrupt is the only thing you can be punished for in terms of reported harassment. That way this is going the GM is trying to say that by resetting you are intentionally disrupting other players, which is improper use of the word. His definition of what you could be punished for is wrong to me and though I doubt I'd ever get in trouble for it on Goblin, I'd totally sympathize for anyone punished because of this terrible interpretation of the ToS by a particular GM. By your logic here spiritbonding on water sprites could be considered disruption if other players were trying to kill water sprites there for crystals and you were in a full party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Actually intent to disrupt is the only thing you can be punished for in terms of reported harassment. That way this is going the GM is trying to say that by resetting you are intentionally disrupting other players, which is improper use of the word. His definition of what you could be punished for is wrong to me and though I doubt I'd ever get in trouble for it on Goblin, I'd totally sympathize for anyone punished because of this terrible interpretation of the ToS by a particular GM

---

It's not just going to be that one particular GM, though. Before posting something like that on the official forums, they most likely would've had to check with their highers-up or at least their colleagues. GM's are typically the customer service reps of a game company. They are the front line people that you talk with and the ones that enforce policies, not the decision makers that write/make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

It's not just going to be that one particular GM, though. Before posting something like that on the official forums, they most likely would've had to check with their highers-up or at least their colleagues. GM's are typically the customer service reps of a game company. They are the front line people that you talk with, not the decision makers that write/make policy.

---

The GMs are just enforcers and typically players. The community managers are the reps you're thinking of, like Bayohne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

The GMs are just enforcers and typically players. The community managers are the reps you're thinking of, like Bayohne

---

Take a guess what that L is for in LGM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiraelina

Take a guess what that L is for in LGM.

---

I'm sorry but what does Sage Sundi have to do with this?

@Appleh4x

If I'm in a party of 8 and we are on our way to do something and on our way we happen to come across an unclaimed A mark and no one is around. We are like awesome, let's kill it. We engage the mark and are happily fighting away and then you come along. You see mark is at 80% health and start spamming your hunt LS's the location.

While waiting for them to get there you start trying to get hate and reset the mob so you and all your friends can get credit. If you are successful, please explain to me how this is fair on my group? How can you say you are not intentionally disrupting our gameplay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

And pulling early could cause 50 people to lose credit as well. It was the opinion of this GM that the act of early pulling is not disruption, but since the ToS are not clearly defined I see it as more disruptive to deny 50 people mark points than 5 people mark points. This is my interpretation and there is no reason for it to be any less valid than your interpretation. 50 GM reports for harassment > 5 reports

---

My (and I know it'll be extremely polarizing) opinion of the matter is there is no such thing as an "early pull". The fact that player(s) give locations, get all their peers together, set pull times etc are a common courtesy extended by the player(s) who found the mark to begin with. If that player(s) finds the mark on his / her / their own accord and decides they don't want to share the information and pulls the mob themselves, what right do WE have "as the faceless horde" to reset that persons mark?

Trampling the rights of 1-4 individuals for the rights of 50+ is not equality.

I know what your next argument will be. "We set a time, we're gathering, and someone pulls before the given time placed by a select individual". I reiterate my point, there is no such thing as an "early pull" as defined by the Devs or GMs. "Pull times" was a concept created by the players to help assist as many players as possible to get full credit (which I will add is a very admirable thing to do), but again, is ultimately a "common courtesy" extended by the server population. The effects of people choosing to not listen to that "set time"?

...well, let's just say I imagine it'll be possible to write a PhD dissertation on the effects a system like hunts have on the overall affects of MMO server dynamics and player interaction (as shown by this thread as a whole).

I am also amused at the fact that if S-E chooses not to extend the Hunt rewards for 2.4, the entire system will die out as people will move onto the next system to get their i120-i130 upgrades coming 2.4+ and that Hunts will then becomes just a vanity system / Alex farm generator (thus making this whole conversation moot! Woo!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

@Appleh4x

If I'm in a party of 8 and we are on our way to do something and on our way we happen to come across an unclaimed A mark and no one is around. We are like awesome, let's kill it. We engage the mark and are happily fighting away and then you come along. You see mark is at 80% health and start spamming your hunt LS's the location.

...

---

If I arrived on a mark that was down 20% I wouldn't try to reset it at all, since I arrived late. I would probably question you guys about why you wouldn't share the info about the mark since having more people there won't hurt your credit and then blist you if you gave me a response like "I play how I want" since that attitude and play style denotes you aren't someone I'd like to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghishlain

My (and I know it'll be extremely polarizing) opinion of the matter is there is no such thing as an "early pull". The fact that player(s) give locations, get all their peers together, set pull times etc are a common courtesy extended by the player(s)

---

Well that's just like... your opinion, man.

This is an MMO, and the thing we are discussing has the ability to be shared at no loss to anyone. Early pulling means you are unwilling to share, and therefore not someone who is good for the community. I don't report early pullers but I do blist them all. I'm choosing to not play with people who are only out for their own benefit, as i believe MMOs are about the progression of many affecting the (virtual) world, not the progression of a few who are only out to get their own rewards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Well that's just like... your opinion, man.

---

And that is your opinion in the matter. I see we are in agreement about opinions =p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghishlain

And that is your opinion in the matter. I see we are in agreement about opinions =p

---

Which is my point about this whole matter, morality is just personal opinions. Just like how people can't be reported for early pulls, they shouldn't be in trouble for resets unless it was done for a malicious reason.

Quote:

---

Early pulling means you are unwilling to share, and therefore not someone who is good for the community.

---

Hmmm... I wouldn't go that far (and I'm clearly pro-courtesy, anti-early pulling).

There could be times when it's totally socially appropriate for people to claim these mobs when others aren't around, and then there are times when it's more socially appropriate to hold your horses and wait for others. Just because someone attempts low-manning an NM doesn't mean that person is the type who is "unwilling to share." To say that is just as bad as denying such a thing as early pulling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thayos

Hmmm... I wouldn't go that far (and I'm clearly pro-courtesy, anti-early pulling).

There are times when it's totally socially appropriate for people to claim these mobs when others aren't around, and then there are times when it's more socially appropriate to hold your horses and wait for others. Just because someone attempts low-manning an NM doesn't mean that person is the type who is "unwilling to share." All kinds of factors could have led that person to believe he or she was in the "right" to make the claim.

---

Yeah, early morning hunt parties are a good example. I'm talking about if you have the ability to share, and you don't for no discernible reason other than being selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Snip due to character limit

---

Why should we have to share the location with everyone on the server if my party of 8 can handle killing the mark by ourselves? Plus the fight is way more interesting and enjoyable as a single party than waiting for a few minutes for 100+ people to arrive and the mark to be zerged down in less than 30 seconds. Why do you feel that you or anyone else on the server are so entitled to that mark?

If I came across a group killing an A mark in this fashion I would be thinking Ok they found it, they can handle it, I will just help attack it and get what credit I can while it's still alive without interfering with them.

I don't understand your sense of entitlement at all.