So resetting's against the rules now?

[Aegis]

There are MANY flaws with this point/argument that's why. The biggest one being what extent you actually think this falls under as being objective rather than subjective. Why do we not wait for everyone on the server to get there then? Unrealistic right? I agree. Then why wouldn't you wait for the few stragglers that are on their way, but not part of your group/LS/FC? I'm sure you'd tell them "sorry but you gotta get here sooner if you want credit". To what degree does it give you the right to deny them the credit, when your idea is that it's bad for a smaller group to "deny" others the chance at seals? Was it unrealistic for you to wait just an extra minute for them to get there? Groups generally do wait a very short time, but once the horde is there... you better be there in seconds before they pull, otherwise you're SOL.

This group doesn't wait, at all. It waits for an announcement, gets there and claims as soon as they dismount.

The entire "greater good" mentality being used here is flawed and always used as a scapegoat for what is actually personal gain. There has never been an example of it being done solely for "everyone to get credit", as that would imply you're thinking about others equally to either yourself or your group/LS/FC/friends. What's that? Some player outside of our circle just joined the fray and the mob is almost dead so he won't get credit? Better reset it - said no one ever. What's that? The mob is almost dead but our group isn't here yet? Better try to steal aggro and reset it until my group/LS/FC gets here - said every self righteous participating player.

I never suggested everyone at all, it's a sliding scale, the longer its held without pull the better. The person who gets hate to reset it by the way would have gold contribution anyway. He/she has nothing to gain from the reset itself other than the respect of the server. And yes, parties I've been in have reset mobs that were pulled too early even though we were all there for full credit.

You're still looking at it wrong. How you SHOULD of said it is like this "But they are definitely helping a very large group of people and hurting a smaller group."

That possibly was there for a reason. Very rarely do you get CCd and have no chance of making any contribution again before it dies.

It's still nil even if they DO claim. And if they wanted it before others did, they should of claimed it.

That reeks of 'screw you buddy I got mine!' More mature adults wait and work together.

[ispano]

The person who gets hate to reset it by the way would have gold contribution anyway.

Again, this is false. Once it resets, he loses all of that, because it resets. Not to mention being on top of the enmity list the whole fight and/or having claim does not guarantee full credit. I've personally tested it.

That possibly was there for a reason. Very rarely do you get CCd and have no chance of making any contribution again before it dies.

Doesn't matter. The intent to reset, regardless of why you think you're doing it is intent to harm those who are already fighting it.

[Aegis]

Doesn't matter. The intent to reset, regardless of why you think you're doing it is intent to harm those who are already fighting it.

If they get gold credit still, they have not been harmed. The intent to reset is the intent to help others with the awareness you may potentially hurt others.

[Enkrateia]

If they get gold credit still, they have not been harmed.

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.

[AlexionSkylark]

Resetting is considered disruptive play regardless of the reason. It is against ToS and a serious offense. I would have to go back through the ToS, but there's a specific portion on disruptive game play. I was told by a GM this was a grief tactic, the reason is irrelevant.

As for this --


There's no such thing as an "early pull." This was developed as a thought by the people. It is not a real thing. If my group is there, I have no reason to wait, and it's not an early pull for my group. Not my fault people didn't react fast enough. Say what you will, but I'm not a people pleaser, and it's not my problem.

You must be fun at parties.

[Welsper59]

This group doesn't wait, at all. It waits for an announcement, gets there and claims as soon as they dismount.

To be honest, that's how it should be. Even hunt groups portray that exact mentality. Who's the one that shouts in the zone? Not the hunt group, it's the solo player. Members of the LS/FC might tell their friends about something, and that's acceptable by everyone, but there's still the exclusive nature that if you're not part of them, you have little rights of say on the matter. Which is where the flaw starts to come to light. The concern is only for those that are part of your circle, even if it is 100 people, it's still a concern for ONLY your own. Telling or implying that a smaller outside group essentially has no right to pull something, when your specific circle is not around, is bullying and promoting a monopoly by only you and yours. You may not see it that way because you're part of the larger group, but it IS seen that way by the smaller party. Just like with actual RL bullying, the one doing it often does not see it that way, despite the clear indication that it is by the victim. Obviously, this is a video game and not essentially the same as bullying IRL, but the similarities really are evident.

I never suggested everyone at all, it's a sliding scale, the longer its held without pull the better. The person who gets hate to reset it by the way would have gold contribution anyway. He/she has nothing to gain from the reset itself other than the respect of the server. And yes, parties I've been in have reset mobs that were pulled too early even though we were all there for full credit.

Wrong in that max contribution is retained after a reset. You need to meet the requirements again after a reset to achieve max reward. I agree about the waiting if the mob were neutral while everyone was there. But if you got there late, and a different party is well into the fight itself, you're not as righteous as you might think you are if you decide to reset so that your group can get there for full credit. Now if you admit to it being a bad/messed up action for doing this, then I can just drop the argument on it because... there's no need to go further. If however, you still view this as a purely positive thing, then wow...

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.

This is very close to what a lot of us wanted to see said. Thank you.

[ToffeeCoffee]

The issue is that Hunt linkshells think they are a law unto themselves.

Open world mobs are there to be attacked.
The Hunt was not designed exclusively for linkshells full of people who have decided the content belongs to them and they get to oversee and govern how it works.

None of you have any right to corner this content as you see fit at the exclusion of everyone else (resetting/abuse/blacklisting/singling out individuals). Passing this behaviour off as for the supposed greater good is no excuse.

Hunt linkshells should all be shut down by SE and the system reworked to run as originally intended, light party (B), full party (A) and multiple parties (S). I've still never killed my weekly mark, stupidly running around looking for it while unbeknownst to me, the same people were scouting and farming it (some using illegal means) all day every day for 5 seals a pop. The Hunt is not there so you can entitle yourself to every single spawn and make others wait so you can maximise your iLevel for content you'll potentially never touch in 2.4.

SE really is to blame for letting this behaviour perpetuate however.

[Thayos]

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.

I'm glad to see the GMs are investigating all of these complaints individually and really taking time to ascertain the intent of each reset. People in my parties often attempt to reset when it's clear scores of other players are en route (even when everyone in my parties is already there), and these people clearly aren't acting with the intent of disrupting anyone. The vast majority of resets I've seen are done for the right reasons.

Thanks again to the moderator by clarifying that intent is the key factor in these investigations.

[Eidolon]

Enkrateia, I would love to ask you this:

What is considered acceptable intent, and what is considered unacceptable intent? So far, this has b een one of the greatest points of contention for a lot of the people posting in this topic. Wheather or not I agree with their opinions does not matter - I respect them for it, and I will endeavor to try and make it so that no one is hurt by my actions (Thus my point of not resetting.)


However, I would like to know what is considered 'acceptable' intent in these scenarios.

Resetting the hunt mob in order to try and allow more people credit? Do you consider that non-malicious intent?
As compared to, say, Resetting the mob repeatedly in order to make it so people can never complete the fight (Which I don't think will ever happen. Eventually a warrior WILL holmgang.)

What situations would resetting a mob be considered malicious intent, if this is not considered malicious intent? How can one hope to prove malicious intent in any of these scenarios, outside of the perpetrator's spoken words?

"Intent" so far has been the hotword of the night, and sadly, I feel it doesn't accurately resolve the situation.

[ispano]

I'm glad to see the GMs are investigating all of these complaints individually and really taking time to ascertain the intent of each reset. People in my parties often attempt to reset when it's clear scores of other players are en route (even when everyone in my parties is already there), and these people clearly aren't acting with the intent of disrupting anyone. The vast majority of resets I've seen are done for the right reasons.

Thanks again to the moderator by clarifying that intent is the key factor in these investigations.

Yikes. What you just described IS intent to disrupt. By saying "I did it to help the group that's not here yet get credit" and thinking you did nothing wrong, you intentionally IGNORE the harm you are directly applying to those who are already there and fighting.