A Bad GM decision?

[Vodou]

There seems to be a lack of information here.

As far as someone saying earlier in the thread about killing with the same amount of people in an hour: I can't really say much about this without bringing up more drama that I don't want in my legitimate thread. All I can say is look at the poster who made that comment and then search comments about this poster. I can guarantee you that this didn't happen as I'm sure anyone here will state. Ask whoever you want about being able to kill Khim with 7 in an hour. Hydra yes easily but Khimaira no.

Luniarians did Khimmy with 7 in 1 hour... sorry if this seems irrelevant, but I was there and it was not ever close to a wipe. Mind you, its not the way we would "want" to do it, but it was doable, so we apparently did over 4 times the damage with 1 fewer person.

To beat the dead horse, well yes, 12% in 30 mins is not 0%, but its slowby. It does not matter IMO, once the GM shows up and says start killing it or disengage, then you have your choice. No one posted the exact conversation on what happened, so the thread sorta speculates, but if a GM shows up, sees a sliver of damage done so far and hardly a crew capable of killing, asks to see progress made on killing, then gets no reply or sees no progress, it sorta seems obvious to me.

The server side LS politics aside, the "guys are on the way" aside, we all know that the rule is not if you do 1 HP of damage per hour, or 1% for 30 mins, nor if you do a good job with a few people, or an amazing job with only 4 white mages, etc. Khimmy should never take 4 and 1/2 hours to kill. It simply is not reasonable.

I just think: after 30 mins the only DD there is a botted WAR. Doesnt seem like there was an urgency to do the deed.

Still doesn't get around the fact that SE's policy regarding holding is specifically worded to address intentional and gross adjustment of a spawn window to keep it in more favorable time zones. It doesn't fucking matter how slow they were killing it, or how fast some other group of 7 people can kill it, they were not violating the holding policy. If they had him under %90, any reasonable person would conclude intent to kill. The point here is that they had intent enough to kill it to do over %10 damage, the GM was making up policy on the fly( or is just a complete retard), calling the GM was a bitch move, and that about sums it up.

This is what SE posted in game on the Q&A on holding mobs:

"If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them."

and

"Holding a monster, especially Notorious Monsters, over an extended period or intentionally delaying the battle in order to adjust the next spawn window may result in GM involvement."

When a mob is capable of being killed by a small group in 1 hour and a group comes along and is killing at a rate that equates to over 4 hours, its clearly delaying.

Definition: Delay
1. To postpone until a later time; defer.
2. To cause to be later or slower than expected or desired: Heavy traffic delayed us.
v.intr.
To act or move slowly; put off an action or a decision.

Definiton: Intentionally
[adverb] with intention; in an intentional manner; "he used that word intentionally"; "I did this by choice"
Synonyms: deliberately, designedly, on purpose, purposely, advisedly, by choice, by design

The group wasn't atacked by Khimmy: they went there to kill him. They didn't have 5 members d/c on accident. They didn't bring more DD who were slept or accidentally warped: there was basically 1. It takes 10 mins max to get to Khimmy from almost any place in the world and it was 30 minutes later.

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived, as long as it would take. Because it was 30 minutes later, they clearly intended to continue with no added help to fight. And if not, they went there with the intent of killing him over the course of 4 hours to begin with. Choose either one, it does not matter.

At the point that the GM showed up, each member of the group should have been aware that they were going to kill him at a much slower rate then normal (expected), for as long as they were allowed to do so, which is what the violation was for. Forget the spawn window red herring. Intentionally delay means purposefully kill at a much slower rate than is normal. Not normal for 7 people of the wrong jobs, but normal for that mob. People do not take 4 hours to kill him, nor should they. The fact is, they had no intention of releasing the mob and they had no intention of stopping what they were doing.

[Somacruz]

Who have i tried to MPK and when @@?

[omgleggonowai]

"we have hate, let's JA and do random stuff so we can tank Tia for them!"

[Somacruz]

Me and Grizz were in a hate battle for when the JP's wiped XD

[omgleggonowai]

.....we had the mob in our hate, and our plds and dmaged it about 10% before you ever started it :3.....

[Somacruz]

You dont remember that me and Grizz got a Stun off when the JP's had it?
Kept Souleatering Was one of our tanks that tried to MPK

[Melchiah]

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived, as long as it would take. Because it was 30 minutes later, they clearly intended to continue with no added help to fight.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Since you like to quote dictionaries, that means they are incapable of being true simultaneously. Pick one; you can't argue both sides.

This one:

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived

is completely OK with SE, they said as much in their policy regarding holding, which I see you have conveniently left out.

From playonline.com's GM Policy:

For example, some Notorious Monsters need a few hours and a large number of players to be taken down. Starting the battle at once is best, but sometimes due to several reasons, such as login timing etc, it might take time before all members arrive and actually start fighting the monster. In such case, we do not consider this monster holding.

If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them.

The bolded part is the part you left out. Reference

[Vodou]

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived, as long as it would take. Because it was 30 minutes later, they clearly intended to continue with no added help to fight.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Since you like to quote dictionaries, that means they are incapable of being true simultaneously. Pick one; you can't argue both sides.

This one:

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived

is completely OK with SE, they said as much in their policy regarding holding, which I see you have conveniently left out.

From playonline.com's GM Policy:

For example, some Notorious Monsters need a few hours and a large number of players to be taken down. Starting the battle at once is best, but sometimes due to several reasons, such as login timing etc, it might take time before all members arrive and actually start fighting the monster. In such case, we do not consider this monster holding.

If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them.

The bolded part is the part you left out. Reference

The first two statements are not mutually exclusive. The concepts are sequential as indicated by the term "continue." In fact, as both indicate seperate states of mind and seperate actions that differed in time, it almost seems impossible to be mutually exclusive. Maybe the phrase "Because it was 30 minutes later" seems confusing. Try "After 30 minutes, when no help had arrived..."

As for the bolded part, indeed yes I left that out. Timmy is not Khimmy and WSNM are not like Vrtra. Yes, they are all NM, but that is where the similarity ends. The bolded part is meant by SE to indicate the EXCEPTION (indicated by the leading phrase "For example") to which GMs will analyze holding. They are indicating that difficult mobs might require longer prep times for large numbers of people to arrive.

SE would not use the words "intentionally delay" if it meant you could take 4 hours to kill Khimmy. If that were the case, one could take 8 hours for Tiamat and 6 hours for Kirin. Then exactly what would be the point of this commentary in the TOS?


None.... the point is, when a group has no intenion of killing a mob in the expected time allowed, then its a violation. Taking 2 hours for Tiamat can be normal. Taking 4 hours for Khimmy is not.

[Melchiah]

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived, as long as it would take. Because it was 30 minutes later, they clearly intended to continue with no added help to fight.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Since you like to quote dictionaries, that means they are incapable of being true simultaneously. Pick one; you can't argue both sides.

This one:

They went there with a weak party with the intent to hold him until others arrived

is completely OK with SE, they said as much in their policy regarding holding, which I see you have conveniently left out.

From playonline.com's GM Policy:

For example, some Notorious Monsters need a few hours and a large number of players to be taken down. Starting the battle at once is best, but sometimes due to several reasons, such as login timing etc, it might take time before all members arrive and actually start fighting the monster. In such case, we do not consider this monster holding.

If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them.

The bolded part is the part you left out. Reference

The first two statements are not mutually exclusive. The concepts are sequential as indicated by the term "continue." In fact, as both indicate seperate states of mind and seperate actions that differed in time, it almost seems impossible to be mutually exclusive. Maybe the phrase "Because it was 30 minutes later" seems confusing. Try "After 30 minutes, when no help had arrived..."

If you are not part of their shell, you cannot claim to have an inside track on what their intent was, or their situation with getting heads logged in/at camp, and it's fallacy to claim you do.

As for the bolded part, indeed yes I left that out. Timmy is not Khimmy and WSNM are not like Vrtra. Yes, they are all NM, but that is where the similarity ends. The bolded part is meant by SE to indicate the EXCEPTION (indicated by the leading phrase "For example") to which GMs will analyze holding. They are indicating that difficult mobs might require longer prep times for large numbers of people to arrive.

Because it weakens your argument.

SE would not use the words "intentionally delay" if it meant you could take 4 hours to kill Khimmy. If that were the case, one could take 8 hours for Tiamat and 6 hours for Kirin. Then exactly what would be the point of this commentary in the TOS?


None.... the point is, when a group has no intenion of killing a mob in the expected time allowed, then its a violation. Taking 2 hours for Tiamat can be normal. Taking 4 hours for Khimmy is not.

Again, you are trying to conclude intent of a group which you are not part of, without considering available data. Khimaira has no rage timer that I'm aware of. Clearly SE expects us to drop Fafnir and Nidhogg in one hour, there is data to support that. All we know is that this shell dropped 12% of Khimaira's HP in 30 min and they got GMed for it. How do you or anyone else know what their MP situation at the time was? That plays a key role in kill speed. Watch a low man Fafnir group, you can tell when their BLMs run out of MP, the kill speed drops drastically.

Calling the GM was a tool move, and the guys who did it were crybabies who didn't get a claim they thought they should have had, and unfortunately an ignorant GM agreed with them. That hasn't changed.

[DnightX]

I've read most of this, and I have some thing's to say, i won't quote cus itt'l get a bit confusing.

Dnight, it made you lol, when dammerung said that, but you know for a fact it's completely true.. We respect everyone, believe it or not. I think roni's attempt was outta shear fustration of you guys' idiocy. I mean, you personally, have attempted to mpk about 10 times in the last 6months i've been on the game. That doesn't include eiladars, jumeyas, soma's, and sin's attempts (btw lol at that cyber). And we have tried, not as an ls decision but a member decision, once. Now, before you go and say it was your and only your decision, please tell me why you mt'd "should i try it again" after attempting to run a spiuder through Twinkleorb's Fafnir (it's only faf).

1)You call a GM on us 24/7 for stupid shit, how is that respectful? that's more like jealousy.

2) I only mpked 2 times within the 6months

3) You cheered me on and told me to do it again so don't say its disrespectful, you are in the same field as me

4) i didn't mt shit you retard

[aurik]

wow only mpk'd people twice in 6 months? someone get this kid a trophy

[BerenTebogo]

My fucking head hurts.

This is no worse than doing cerb with like 7 people, someone always GMs someone else. Can you kill khim with 7? Yes.

On Fenrir server, in the epic shitstorm of stupidity that has been the past 12 months can anyone claim Khim with less than 18 and not expect to be GM'd? You all know the answer to this. The GM was a douche, he shouldn't have removed you Deevo, here on Ifrit a PLD with Excalibur was the ONLY DD for an entire 4-5 hour Khim, and GM didn't do shit.

I just don't get how you all still act surprised by this shit, if you're going to claim a valuable NM and a LS that HATES YOU (it works both ways for you guys) is around, it's entirely within your right to notify a GM before hand that you are initiating battle with 7 people and intend to damage -> kill it steadily at a reasonable rate for that number, some GMs will even wanna watch to see if you can do it without fucking up.

But so help me god, if I see another real life fucking picture of someone on Fenrir used as ammunition, the screenshots of shit that I have will come out, you think Joe and the others have bad shit? Good one.

Stop being assclowns and keep real life seperate from a game, unless you can't differentiate the two, in which case, kill yourself.

[Cail]

here on Ifrit a PLD with Excalibur was the ONLY DD for an entire 4-5 hour Khim, and GM didn't do shit.

o man good times >.> longest 4 hours of my life on game...fucking sucked

[Milkymallards]

This is what SE posted in game on the Q&A on holding mobs:

"If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them."

and

"Holding a monster, especially Notorious Monsters, over an extended period or intentionally delaying the battle in order to adjust the next spawn window may result in GM involvement."

When a mob is capable of being killed by a small group in 1 hour and a group comes along and is killing at a rate that equates to over 4 hours, its clearly delaying.

Intentionally delaying, to me, would mean a specific group clearly taking their sweet time about killing something that they themselves could have killed in less time without any trouble. It doesn't mean "if X can kill it in an hour, and Y takes longer than an hour, Y is delaying." It bears repeating that if they were attempting to kill it in good faith, to the best of their ability based on what they had there, then they were not holding. The debate in that instance is whether or not you should be allowed to claim with a group which is capable of killing, but which might take a long time. Since only a complete retard would say you should not be able to fight things you obviously have the ability to kill, the argument is moot, as far as I can see.

[Melchiah]

This is what SE posted in game on the Q&A on holding mobs:

"If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them."

and

"Holding a monster, especially Notorious Monsters, over an extended period or intentionally delaying the battle in order to adjust the next spawn window may result in GM involvement."

When a mob is capable of being killed by a small group in 1 hour and a group comes along and is killing at a rate that equates to over 4 hours, its clearly delaying.

Intentionally delaying, to me, would mean a specific group clearly taking their sweet time about killing something that they themselves could have killed in less time without any trouble. It doesn't mean "if X can kill it in an hour, and Y takes longer than an hour, Y is delaying." It bears repeating that if they were attempting to kill it in good faith, to the best of their ability based on what they had there, then they were not holding. The debate in that instance is whether or not you should be allowed to claim with a group which is capable of killing, but which might take a long time. Since only a complete retard would say you should not be able to fight things you obviously have the ability to kill, the argument is moot, as far as I can see.

Thank you. You get it.

BUT!

Heaven forbid the first group on the scened of a pop claim something and try to have fun with the mob and challenge themselves by trying to take it down with less than two alliances and one full party of outside healers. Fuck no, that's holding and we should GM every cocksucker who does it because we feel obligated to sit here and hope against hope that they fuck up and lose claim. But why wait when we can GM for holding and make them lose claim to suit us? HAHAHAHA fuck those guys because they want to challenge themselves.

[Afrohatch]

This just in: Khim sucks and isn't worth the drama!

[Weeks]

wow only mpk'd people twice in 6 months? someone get this kid a trophy

Too busy scoring with chicks hired to take souvenir photos.

[DnightX]

wow only mpk'd people twice in 6 months? someone get this kid a trophy

Too busy scoring with chicks hired to take souvenir photos.

Don't be jealous :D

[Eiladar]

This is what SE posted in game on the Q&A on holding mobs:

"If the holders mean to hold monsters to deliberately adjust the next spawn window or intentionally delay killing them, GMs will take action against them."

and

"Holding a monster, especially Notorious Monsters, over an extended period or intentionally delaying the battle in order to adjust the next spawn window may result in GM involvement."

When a mob is capable of being killed by a small group in 1 hour and a group comes along and is killing at a rate that equates to over 4 hours, its clearly delaying.

Intentionally delaying, to me, would mean a specific group clearly taking their sweet time about killing something that they themselves could have killed in less time without any trouble. It doesn't mean "if X can kill it in an hour, and Y takes longer than an hour, Y is delaying." It bears repeating that if they were attempting to kill it in good faith, to the best of their ability based on what they had there, then they were not holding. The debate in that instance is whether or not you should be allowed to claim with a group which is capable of killing, but which might take a long time. Since only a complete retard would say you should not be able to fight things you obviously have the ability to kill, the argument is moot, as far as I can see.

Thank you. You get it.

BUT!

Heaven forbid the first group on the scened of a pop claim something and try to have fun with the mob and challenge themselves by trying to take it down with less than two alliances and one full party of outside healers. Fuck no, that's holding and we should GM every cocksucker who does it because we feel obligated to sit here and hope against hope that they fuck up and lose claim. But why wait when we can GM for holding and make them lose claim to suit us? HAHAHAHA fuck those guys because they want to challenge themselves.

THEY DID 12% IN 30MIN! 30MIN!

[Milkymallards]

THEY DID 12% IN 30MIN! 30MIN!

If you just make the same point again, but add even more emphasis (possibly some bold) everybody will probably start agreeing with you.