So resetting's against the rules now?

[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.

[Sove92]

Does SE not want these mobs to reset? Then stop letting them reset. They could design away the problem if they chose to.

Hell, some S's can reset themselves. Bonnacon was doing it yesterday because nobody could see him and he would fear the tank outside of the "encounter zone" or whatever and then reset.

Removing the leash being the only solution I'd expect them to do, going for #2 in hate table and so on would require modifications to the core system. Unfortunately that can result in people pulling the mobs to totally annoying locations.

[Aylis]

Does SE not want these mobs to reset? Then stop letting them reset. They could design away the problem if they chose to.

Hell, some S's can reset themselves. Bonnacon was doing it yesterday because nobody could see him and he would fear the tank outside of the "encounter zone" or whatever and then reset.

Simple solution? The group that tags and pulls the monster. That monster is locked and no one else can aid or interfere until the party that engaged it wipes. Or implement scaling for the coding. In this day in age you simply can not have an open world fight designed to challenge 4-8 people and not expect 100+ to show up based with the carrot on the string bait of full or partial credit. ESPECIALLY if said other players can effect the flow of the fight. If a party of 8 engage? Great then the fight scales for 8 players. If 100 show up? Well then that fight scales to challenge 100 players.

The other choice? Abandon the entire hunt concept and the fights show up as zone bosses while rewards stay the same.

[Giantbane]

Removing the leash being the only solution I'd expect them to do, going for #2 in hate table and so on would require modifications to the core system. Unfortunately that can result in people pulling th mobs to totally annoying locations.

If modifying the system so that it just doesn't reset its HP values and/or contribution if it "leashes" as long as there are any other active targets within the leash area is particularly difficult, I'd say they need to hire some new programmers...

[Ashkendor]

I'm so glad I got all the sands/oils I needed from hunts while people were still (generally) thoughtful enough to help each other!

It's not a matter of being thoughtful or not thoughtful. I appreciate people that wait for others, but they are under no obligation to do so and any wait is purely at the discretion of the people already at the mark. Hell, I'm more patient than most when I do find a mark. I usually wait around 3 RL minutes to give people time to show up (barring people just up and pulling it before the person/party that found it). That's more than enough time to let the word get around. However, once the mob is engaged, it's unfair for someone that was (for example) afk or in a dungeon when the information came across their linkshell/FC to either 1) show up and reset the mob themselves (usually only happens if it's a small group fighting it with no tank) or 2) get someone in their linkshell/FC that's already at the fight to reset it so that they have time to get there. You were otherwise engaged so you lost out on this particular one. It kinda sucks, but better luck next time. There will always be other marks, so please do not ruin this one for the people that are already there. The GM made it pretty clear that doing so is at your own risk.

[Ghishlain]

Simple solution? The group that tags and pulls the monster. That monster is locked and no one else can aid or interfere until the party that engaged it wipes.

They did this in FFXI, which lead to other parties making HUGE attempts at MPKing the party that tagged the boss as well as griefing them as hard as possible. It also lead to a spat of claim bots looking to claim these elusive HNMs, so sadly, this isn't a solution either.

I do like the scaling idea though, wonder how hard that'd be to implement.

In terms of removing leashing, that leads to another form of potential griefing in the sense that people drag level 50 mobs throughout the zone and use their AoEs to kill under leveled players or just players in town centres, etc. Sure, the mob will die faster as an entire town leaps onto it, but I imagine you can see a potential issue here too. As others have mentioned, if they change it so it re-engages the 2nd highest enmity player there, that would solve the whole reset thing too.

[Enkrateia]

I've removed an off topic philosophical discussion about oppression and gender. Let's keep the discussion on topic, since continuing this type of negative, off topic discussion in the thread will result in forum account actions. As well, should it continue, the thread may need to be locked, closing off all discussion about this topic.

LGM Enkrateia

[Giantbane]

Simple solution? The group that tags and pulls the monster. That monster is locked and no one else can aid or interfere until the party that engaged it wipes. Or implement scaling for the coding. In this day in age you simply can not have an open world fight designed to challenge 4-8 people and not expect 100+ to show up based with the carrot on the string bait of full or partial credit. ESPECIALLY if said other players can effect the flow of the fight. If a party of 8 engage? Great then the fight scales for 8 players. If 100 show up? Well then that fight scales to challenge 100 players.

The other choice? Abandon the entire hunt concept and the fights show up as zone bosses while rewards stay the same.

Bare minimum solution is to not reset contribution on reset. I can see little to no downside in doing this.

[Aegis]

I've removed an off topic philosophical discussion about oppression and gender. Let's keep the discussion on topic, since continuing this type of negative, off topic discussion in the thread will result in forum account actions. As well, should it continue, the thread may need to be locked, closing off all discussion about this topic.

LGM Enkrateia

Thank you.

Bare minimum solution is to not reset contribution on reset. I can see little to no downside in doing this.

This. Would make everyone happy, I imagine.

[Thayos]

However, once the mob is engaged, it's unfair for someone that was (for example) afk or in a dungeon when the information came across their linkshell/FC to either 1) show up and reset the mob themselves (usually only happens if it's a small group fighting it with no tank) or 2) get someone in their linkshell/FC that's already at the fight to reset it so that they have time to get there. You were otherwise engaged so you lost out on this particular one.

I agree!

But that is just one of many possible things that could happen. Not all reasons for resetting are "right." Just like not all early pulls are "right."

The only thing clear is what's against the rules and what's not... but that's not the same as right and wrong.