So resetting's against the rules now?

[Brine_Gildchaff]

I still wonder about the situation I posed earlier in the thread, though. What if a party that finds a mob elects to shout and wait to allow others to try for credit, but a lone griefer decides to run in and pull the mob on their own to prevent the finding party from waiting? Are they then justified in attempting to reset the mob and resume waiting?

[Aegis]

I still wonder about the situation I posed earlier in the thread, though. What if a party that finds a mob elects to shout and wait to allow others to try for credit, but a lone griefer decides to run in and pull the mob on their own to prevent the finding party from waiting? Are they then justified in attempting to reset the mob and resume waiting?

According to GMs, No. You are interfering with the game play of the griefer. And if they are a griefer you can be damn sure they will report you.

[Krr]

It's good to see that mob theft by hunt linkshells is, at least, an issue that the GMs will investigate, and that the entitled players defending this brazen act are being ignored.

According to GMs, No. You are interfering with the game play of the griefer. And if they are a griefer you can be damn sure they will report you.

Attacking a mob with the legitimate intent to defeat it for rewards is not griefing. Stealing someone else's in mid-combat, depending on circumstances, is. Shut and closed. Dry your tears elsewhere.

[Aegis]

Attacking a mob with the legitimate intent to defeat it for rewards is not griefing. Stealing someone else's in mid-combat is. Shut and closed. Dry your tears elsewhere.

I know they've broken no rules in the game, so you're right, griefing isn't the right term. But the right terms are words I can get reported for using here. It's a shame you can't see past your personal wants and see that this will directly cost people on your server. Without resets there will be fewer seals for the whole server because resets are a net increase in seals provided.

I accept the GM's decision, I think it's wrong but at least they were as clear as they could be.

[Hyrist]

Really? fetishistic? maybe you need to have a quick check on how personal you're taking this.

And the fact that resets increased the seals provided isn't really disputable. Scores of additional people got to hit the mob, groups had time to be formed to allow people to pool their contribution. I don't know what you personally have against linkshells. Maybe people working together for a common goal doesn't fit in your schema of an MMO, but it does in mine. Playing a game without consideration for others doesn't fit in mine.

You see, because the content itself lies in the grey area between competition and co-operation, you justify content denial to a lower number of people for the 'greater good'. It's still content denial.


Committing a wrong for a greater good still commits a wrong, and therefore betrays the very same philosophy you're trying to claim moral ground upon. The content cannot support the volume you are trying to force upon it. Yet you shame the number of people who acknowledge that fact and attempt to enjoy the content sportaticly, as designed.

This level of persecution is nothing short of harassment, regardless of whether or not you perceive it as clean moral standing. And in most cases, those who claim the righteousness of the majority only do so when they conform to the crowd, as opposed to being subjected to it.

Again, taking moral greys to their extreme black and whites typically clears the viewpoint. For example: Is it right to tell one starving person to give up the apple they found because the rest of the crowd is hungry as well? No, in neither case is the individual obligated to conform to the will of the people nor is it 'right' for them to. Yet, you would wrest that apple from the starving individual's hands because you feel the meal would be better split.

Again, I am going to reiterate my standing point on this topic: This divide is the quintessential reason why you cannot create open world content without some form of hard control - be it semi-instancing or hard claim. If I am to tip my personal opinion, I lead towards the former (semi-instanced), as it is the least likely to generate no-win content denial scenarios like we have here.

Content Denial in most cases is a bad design practice. Content denial that is player-enforced rather than system enforced is exponentially worse. SE should have never designed a system that encourages such passive-aggressive competitive/conformist behaviors.

[Ghishlain]

I still wonder about the situation I posed earlier in the thread, though. What if a party that finds a mob elects to shout and wait to allow others to try for credit, but a lone griefer decides to run in and pull the mob on their own to prevent the finding party from waiting? Are they then justified in attempting to reset the mob and resume waiting?

As someone else put earlier in the thread, there is "no such thing as an early pull". This is just a common courtesy extended by the server as an unwritten rule, but the hunts were (in my opinion) intended to be competitive in some facet as open world content is wont to be. If they pull first because no one else pulled, they might be a douche move on their part, but I do not believe this is a violation of the ToS in any way, shape, or form. Thus, causing a reset here is technically grieving that particular player, so reset at your own discretion because I am sure that particular player WILL report you since he is, in my opinion, an unscrupulous individual.