Who says what is "Intended"? - Page 2

Crabbok · 02-29-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaige

waa waa waa I'm soo awesome

lol dude your pathetic. seriously.

Gaige · 02-29-2008, 03:18 PM

Your spelling and grammar are pathetic, I'm a shining beacon of excellence and purity.

Illuminator · 02-29-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

It has always sorta pissed me off when I would hear someone accuse someone of exploiting or cheating because they did an encounter in a manner that was not the way it was "Intended". A little voice in my head would always ask "Well how do they know the official way that an encounter is intended?".

You know what? I was in the basement of Sebilis watching people die to these drogan spy NPC's that couldn't be targeted with the mouse or even hovered over to see health. And I was like, fuck it, if the devs can cheat, so can we.

Shinzul · 02-29-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

Dude,, for one i've never actually even done drussk, (however you spell it). my guild is still early in VP at the moment. We have been struggling to learn the new nexona fight, because we do NOT exploit.

My question wasn't in regards to any specific exploit, but more of a general question to ALL those gaige wannabee's out there who like to tell people that there is only one way that they are allowed to fry an egg.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant there... but you mentioned leashing adds and exploiting. And the flavor of the month has been Druushk and leashing.

Crabbok · 02-29-2008, 03:29 PM

Ya my spelling sux, go fuck a goat.

So anyone got any REAL input to this thread? i'm guessing not, even though it was a serious question.

Generally the first guild or 2 that kill an encounter tend to set the precedant on how it should be killed, and not long after that, in most cases, that way becomes the "Way it is intended". My point is... who's designing these encounters.. and are they telling certain people "The one and only way it is meant to be beaten!"? And do those certain people relay that through eq2flames and it becomes law? Or do we just tend to all mutually agree on the best way and criticise anyone who deviates from the norm?

Lets be clear, I'm not talking about exploiting specificly. I'm talking about different strats. Lets say DragonX has 2 sets of adds that comes. NPU kills them by burning the adds, and that becomes "The Way it's Intended"... Well whats wrong with mezzing the adds? or Maybe even charming them? or maybe have a ranger snare them and kite them in circles around the raid while the other 23 burn it down?

My point is, peopel here generally preach about "Intended Mechanics"... but what if.... just what if.... a fight was intended to have multiple ways to win? Who is the authority on intended mechanics?

BrightMorn · 02-29-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

Who is the authority on intended mechanics?

All depends on how the encounter is changed after it has been beaten and what ways are eliminated and what are not. So the Devs have the ultimate authority... since they are the ones that intended for whatever to happen in the first place.

Crabbok · 02-29-2008, 03:51 PM

Ok that much makes sense. When an encounter is changed, then obviously something about happened previously that was not intended.

What about current encounters though? Those that are not changed yet? Plenty of people here THINK they are the authority on how things should be done.

Many of the RoK raids have a nasty AoE if you are doing something wrong, which is typically a good way to let you know that you need to re-think your strat. So is it safe to assume that, provided you don't exploit, if you find a new way to kill a mob without getting an AoE then it is wrong?

Like for example, people in my guild joke alot and say "hey, we shoudl try pulling nexona in the green acid!"... but what if you did? What if that somehow made the fight easier? Would that be wrong?

Pinski · 02-29-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

Ok that much makes sense. When an encounter is changed, then obviously something about happened previously that was not intended.

What about current encounters though? Those that are not changed yet? Plenty of people here THINK they are the authority on how things should be done.

Many of the RoK raids have a nasty AoE if you are doing something wrong, which is typically a good way to let you know that you need to re-think your strat. So is it safe to assume that, provided you don't exploit, if you find a new way to kill a mob without getting an AoE then it is wrong?

Like for example, people in my guild joke alot and say "hey, we shoudl try pulling nexona in the green acid!"... but what if you did? What if that somehow made the fight easier? Would that be wrong?

It'd be "unknown" until things got changed to correct that issue if it really was an issue.

Lesdat · 02-29-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

This was inspired by the ethics thread in this section, so I wanted to make a separate thread for it.

It has always sorta pissed me off when I would hear someone accuse someone of exploiting or cheating because they did an encounter in a manner that was not the way it was "Intended". A little voice in my head would always ask "Well how do they know the official way that an encounter is intended?".

Example, back in T6, my guild was the first (that I know of) guidl to do pedastal of sky and kill it by burning ONE dragon down, healing through the AoE, and then kill the other dragon. I had recieved tells from many people, claiming that that is not how the encounter was intended, and taht kinda started this whol thought in my head.

Who is the player that decides how an encounter is intended? Why is it that people seem to insist that there cannot be multiple ways to kill a mob? If there is a mob that summons adds, and you pull him to a location that is far away from where the adds would spawn, and they do not end up coming to the raid as a result, is that intended or not? If not then how do you really know? Perhaps the adds did not see the master so they simply went back home.

I don't mean to sound silly, because I"m sure for MOST of the encounters out there, we can all agree on how it works and how it's intended... but there seems to be a grey area to me. Who really has the right to declare how a mob is truly intended? I say none of us, Until Sony has a pop up window detailing the intended mechanics for each mob you prepare to fight, then there really is no "intended" way...

I agree. I am not the raider that you were/are; however, in regular instance or quest groups I find it entertaining that they want a particular make-up. When MUCH is still very well possible with the same effeciency if people are willing to use themself in a non-conventional way. My guild and friends know that when the word goes out on a situation that changes from well under control to a little more than we can handle or the tank can take in for damage we break from our action and go into another mode.

Call it utility, call it a last effort to save the group, from fearing a mob and rooting it eight steps away to swashy mezzing. Whatever it may be or take to save the group, we're aware to step up to the plate.

Now back to your point... in groups like this when things go awry... so to speak... I'll do everything I can to suppress or hold off an add or an amount of damage to the tank in every way I can. It works! It's saved groups. But people sometimes get so pissy, tanks in particular, who die when tanking three then twenty minutes later they're tanking three again, taking a tHrAsHiNg! And whine and complain when someone pulled it off. "I could have handled that." No... you couldn't. Don't even argue the group can work as intended when the tank bounces from 3/4 life to 1/8 life twice in five seconds.

Anyways, just my gripe. And I agree, but not under the circumstance of raiding. I don't raid a whole lot.

Crabbok · 02-29-2008, 04:01 PM

I'm really playing the devils advocate for most of this shit. Most of it is common sense to a raider, but sometimes there are other ways.

Hell, Zarda and Kodux are a good example. I'm pretty sure you could burn one of them down first if you wanted to. It might be harder than keeping them both within a certain percentage and a certain distance from each other or whatever.. but I bet you could. And why not? Hell it's fun having multiple ways to do things... especially when your doing raid zone x for the 75th time and feel like changing it up.

Hell another example... Protectors realm. 1st time in there we had no idea what was going on and wiped to doomcoil. Ya we did, oh well. You know that next encounter works differently if doomcoil is still up... and there are scripts for it in place... which tells me that there are 2 very diffreent ways you can do it. One is going to be alot harder than the other.... but 2 ways.

Hell there was 2 ways to do pawbuster for awhile also. I guess I just get annoyed when people claim theres only one way to do something and anyone who doesn't agree with them are wrong.