Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[Alleo]

This is a two way street. If the tank refuses to even try to better himself to the bare minimum level of acceptable performance (in an engame dungeon where everything hits like a wet noodle) Then people can and will kick them. It's the exact same as kicking any other role that's being lazy and not trying. Tanks don't get a free pass just because they picked the "in demand" role.

But are single group pulls really compareable to a DPS that only hits one button? If the tank does not just afk between pulls, pulls it steadly and holds aggro, why is the person lazy? I had my fair share of lazy or bad people in dungeons, even really bad tanks who died on the first trash pull or that could not hold aggro at all. But seemingly that person was able to do that. So lets put a bit of hyperbole in it: If we had a group that was somehow that good together that they would be able to pull a huuuge amount of monsters that normally would not be possible. Wouldnt that mean that anyone that would not do that is lazy? Where is the line?

Ever see this? It came from a GM.

Wasnt this before the ToS changed to the more harsher rules? Also I am quite sure that difference in playstyles still does not mean that you have to accept any kick. If you kick someone because he is wearing the wrong glamour and you talk about it then I am quite sure one could punish you for that kick. In the end that was their fail save answer so that people are able to kick people that are just simply too bad to clear a dungeon. Kicking someone for using Garuda instead of Ifrit would surely not fall under that.

[Vahlnir]

But are single group pulls really compareable to a DPS that only hits one button? If the tank does not just afk between pulls, pulls it steadly and holds aggro, why is the person lazy? I had my fair share of lazy or bad people in dungeons, even really bad tanks who died on the first trash pull or that could not hold aggro at all. But seemingly that person was able to do that. So lets put a bit of hyperbole in it: If we had a group that was somehow that good together that they would be able to pull a huuuge amount of monsters that normally would not be possible. Wouldnt that mean that anyone that would not do that is lazy? Where is the line?



Wasnt this before the ToS changed to the more harsher rules? Also I am quite sure that difference in playstyles still does not mean that you have to accept any kick. If you kick someone because he is wearing the wrong glamour and you talk about it then I am quite sure one could punish you for that kick. In the end that was their fail save answer so that people are able to kick people that are just simply too bad to clear a dungeon. Kicking someone for using Garuda instead of Ifrit would surely not fall under that.

I wouldn't mind a link to their new rules just so we can all pick through it. Couldn't seem to find them anywhere myself.

[Feidam]

I wouldn't mind a link to their new rules just so we can all pick through it. Couldn't seem to find them anywhere myself.

http://support.na.square-enix.com/fa...6&id=5382&la=1

[Vahlnir]

http://support.na.square-enix.com/fa...6&id=5382&la=1

Cool stuff, thank you.

I'm not seeing anywhere where a "difference in playstyles" could not apply. It was even stated before by the GMs that it was a bit of an unwritten rule. "Obstruction of play" has been a thing for years prior to the revision of the ToS. So unless we get a confirmation that this has changed I'm under the impression that it's still a legitimate reason to remove someone from a group. I'm not saying that everyone using such an excuse to kick people is right. A lot of people are not. But there are matters that players much solve themselves and this reason covers those which are legit.

[Feidam]

Cool stuff, thank you.

I'm not seeing anywhere where a "difference in playstyles" could not apply. It was even stated before by the GMs that it was a bit of an unwritten rule. "Obstruction of play" has been a thing for years prior to the revision of the ToS. So unless we get a confirmation that this has changed I'm under the impression that it's still a legitimate reason to remove someone from a group. I'm not saying that everyone using such an excuse to kick people is right. A lot of people are not. But there are matters that players much solve themselves and this reason covers those which are legit.

Improper expulsion voting
This means excluding another person by manipulation of expulsion voting.

Other obstruction of play
This means all other behaviour that deliberately obstructs another person's game play by some means.

Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule
Expressions that compel a playing style

With the new wording these could all come into play in the large vs small pulls debate with a gm.

Vote kicking pure and simple is an obstruction of play for the person kicked. However, there are legitimate uses of the vote kick as no one has to endure the bad behavior of someone else. Also, kicking someone for not large pulling could fall under the forcing playstyles. And of course the rest go withhow players tend show their displeasure(on either side) and that could make or break each of the other reasons. It all depends on where they stand. With new rules they have given themselves way more leeway in dealing with reports. Question is how are they enforcing it.

[Vahlnir]

Vote kicking pure and simple is an obstruction of play for the person kicked. However, there are legitimate uses of the vote kick as no one has to endure the bad behavior of someone else. Also, kicking someone for not large pulling could fall under the forcing playstyles. And of course the rest go withhow players tend show their displeasure. It all depends on where they stand. With new rules they have given themselves way more leeway in dealing with reports. Question is how are they enforcing it.

Yeah, I read all that. There was nothing regarding "a difference in playstyles" much like there wasn't before. I'm more or less curious as to how their unwritten rule applies now if it even applies at all. If it doesn't, whatever. But I'm definitely curious. This is honestly something only a GM could confirm.

[WaterShield]

Who said anything about single target And I also said necessarily not absolutely. As in there are times where they are a detriment. I’ve been groups where the pulls went flawlessly yay for us nice smooth run. I’ve been in groups where there they took longer to kill for whatever reason and small pulls should have been the way to go. So large pulls are not necessarily faster. Also you are not getting more damage from spells in large pulls. The potencies remain the same. What you are getting is the killing of more mobs in one go that could save a bit time as you are stopping less meaning being more efficient. Which in turn could lead to a faster run time assuming the kill rate is fast enough. Which usually happens with the level of gear we have the moment but doesn’t always. There are more variables to consider then large pulls only go!

Ok, so when I have an Aoe skill that doesn't have drop off on the damage...say scatter for instance. It does 100 damage to EVERYTHING it hits. So for every monster I hit with it I do an additional 100 potency of damage. Multiply this by the number of enemies the tank has on them and you arrive at the potency per cast I am now doing. Past 3 enemies I am doing more damage per cast than I can with ANY single target ability I have. So this very simply boils down to big number > small number.

Again who was saying to use single target abilities? Not I.

Edit: Post cap hit so responding here. I am clearly stating that larger pulls using aoe skills = larger damage... so I did not say to use single target abilities. I said to pull more so that your aoe does even more damage per cast.

Sorry if it did not come across as clearly as intended.

[Feidam]

Yeah, I read all that. There was nothing regarding "a difference in playstyles" much like there wasn't before. I'm more or less curious as to how their unwritten rule applies now if it even applies at all. If it doesn't, whatever. But I'm definitely curious. This is honestly something only a GM could confirm.

Except they did. Compelling a play style touches on this and they said the list isn’t exhaustive. They have a lot room for whatever interpretation they want. Differing could still hold true, but I think players holding fast to that ruling could possibly be setting themselves up. I’d make sure you pair that kick with another infraction. It would be nice if we could get an official ruling, but they never seem to do that.

[Feidam]

Ok, so when I have an Aoe skill that doesn't have drop off on the damage...say scatter for instance. It does 100 damage to EVERYTHING it hits. So for every monster I hit with it I do an additional 100 potency of damage. Multiply this by the number of enemies the tank has on them and you arrive at the potency per cast I am now doing. Past 3 enemies I am doing more damage per cast than I can with ANY single target ability I have. So this very simply boils down to big number > small number.

Again who was saying to use single target abilities? Not I.

[Vahlnir]

Except they did. Compelling a play style touches on this and they said the list isn’t exhaustive. They have a lot room for whatever interpretation they want. Differing could still hold true, but I think players holding fast to that ruling could possibly be setting themselves up. I’d make sure you pair that kick with another infraction.

Fair point. I suppose I don't view an expression compelling a playstyle the same as kicking over a difference in playstyles but it's their ToS, not mine. It could very well overrule their previous stance on things and that's fine. Their terms leave a little too much open to interpretation imo. The only kicks I've initiated in the past were well within the terms, thankfully.