raid Once again asking for an instanced Hamidon Raid

[Laucianna]

8 minutes ago, Frozen Burn said:

AFKing / leeching - do they cause a "Yellow Dawn"?  Do they cause the raid to fail?  I doubt it.

The way I personally run my Hamidons yes they do 🙂 I could run it the slower way and make everyone suffer because 6 people don't want to join the league, but that is unfair on everyone else who is actually making the event go successfully.

The bit I am confused on, is it's fine if you want to play Solo, no issue with that, but you can't expect changes to league events to cater to solo play

[Frozen Burn]

5 minutes ago, Gerswin said:

The much much much bigger issue is the hour wait to start rather than the ability to exclude the nuisances.

 

Sounds like more hami raids are needed then.  This happened on Torch.  During peak time, the Hive was filling early so they started doing an "earlybird" Hami raid before the regular one.  And then there was a 3rd one - the "afterhours" raid.  And all 3 were done every night of the week.  Different leaders for the different raids.  Now, we're down to 2 per night, but it will go back up eventually.  

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

The way I personally run my Hamidons yes they do 🙂 I could run it the slower way and make everyone suffer because 6 people don't want to join the league, but that is unfair on everyone else who is actually making the event go successfully.

The bit I am confused on, is it's fine if you want to play Solo, no issue with that, but you can't expect changes to league events to cater to solo play

No one is asking for changes to league events to cater to solo play. The request is to not implement changes to league events to cut out solo play.

[Laucianna]

5 minutes ago, Frozen Burn said:

 

Sounds like more hami raids are needed then.  This happened on Torch.  During peak time, the Hive was filling early so they started doing an "earlybird" Hami raid before the regular one.  And then there was a 3rd one - the "afterhours" raid.  And all 3 were done every night of the week.  Different leaders for the different raids.  Now, we're down to 2 per night, but it will go back up eventually.  

We currently have the one I run, the early hami ran by @Oklahoman on a lot of the days, one ran in the hive at a bit later time, then sometimes even a overflow raid led by Okie again at the same time as mine, it doesn't make sense to have even more people having to lead these events then allowing the people leading them to start on time, without them having to take an extra hour out of their day to sit in a zone twiddling their thumbs

[Frozen Burn]

2 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

The bit I am confused on, is it's fine if you want to play Solo, no issue with that, but you can't expect changes to league events to cater to solo play

 

Hami raids were never league events initially.... they were just teams and soloists banding together to take him down.  This happened for many, many, many issues until i20 when leagues were created with the incarnate trials and thusly, also help facilitate communications on these zone events.  

 

I'm not saying leagues are bad - they are good and have greatly improved the experience and made it SO much easier to do these events.  But using that as an excuse to eliminate good soloists who can tag a long and contribute just to punish bad ones... I'm not for that.  

 

WE as players are not here to punish others - we are here to play a game.  If people are misbehaving to cause a raid to fail - then we have a duty to be good security guards (with no real power) to report them and the Devs/GMs (the police with real power) punish them. 

 

[Laucianna]

10 minutes ago, Rudra said:

No one is asking for changes to league events to cater to solo play. The request is to not implement changes to league events to cut out solo play.

The suggestion would benefit leagues and their leaders in a league event ran by the league leader, in the process cutting out solo play, in a league event...

Edited May 7 by Laucianna

[Indystruck]

28 minutes ago, Frozen Burn said:

And if it's really justice you want.... When you're defeating Hami and they are AFK'ing AOEs or jumping in for their few hits... Incan the league out and let Hami kill them.  Doing that right as the mitos respawn too.  Sure, you'd have to kill the mitos again.  but you could also do it again at 50% and 25% Hami health.  You could get a little justice/revenge that way, and just perhaps, they might learn a lesson.  😄  

 

 

wouldn't work if they have teleport prompt off, which if they are AFKing is likely

[Frozen Burn]

3 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

 

wouldn't work if they have teleport prompt off, which if they are AFKing is likely

 

yes, if they are on the league, correct.  But if not, then it would.  

[Rudra]

20 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

26 minutes ago, Rudra said:

No one is asking for changes to league events to cater to solo play. The request is to not implement changes to league events to cut out solo play.

The suggestion would benefit leagues and their leaders in a league event ran by the league leader, in the process cutting out solo play, in a league event...

And now you are back to something I cannot agree with. Asking for a means of dealing with bad actors I can support. Asking for a means to cut out players because they aren't joining your league I cannot. The bad actors would be ones that intentionally place themselves away from the bowl causing buds to spawn who knows where. Simple solution? Make the buds always show on the map so bad actors can't hide them. Aside from that, I can't see any way for a player to cause problems for the league on a Hami raid. If the zone filled before the raid leader gets there? If you have targeters in the full zone, message them and have them go to your zone, then announce the raid will be forming in your zone. Or do what someone else said and have an experienced member already in zone lead it. Or do both. Players not on the league are just sitting there and waiting for Hami to spawn, then popping over, hitting him for raid credit and running out? Annoying, but I would rather that than cut out others that contribute despite not being on the league. How does that saying go? Better 10 guilty walk free than 1 innocent go to jail or something like that? If your league can clear the raid, then who cares if a few bad apples just steal some credit. They aren't actually hurting the raid or you would not have been able to complete it.

 

Edit: As for the creeper? Announce that character/player to all the world. (Edit again: On your server. Others using that name on other servers shouldn't be punished for that person.) When no one wants to play with that person any more, (s)he/they will learn their lesson. Until then, just tell everyone to put said person on ignore.

Edited May 7 by Rudra

[Wispur]

Making a change to leagues that benefit people who want to be in the leagues shouldn't be contentious either.

If someone wants to play solo, that's great!
But they shouldn't be expecting to get the benefits of league content while remaining solo.

and, I should point out, it's not like we're talking about people having to meet specific incarnate or accolade requirements, or anything like that.
Generally the bar for joining a Hamidon league is saying in Broadcast "Here for Hami" and that's it.
If that's too much of a hurdle to overcome, I don't know what to say, lol.

[Americas Angel]

Good suggestion. More player options is always a good thing.

 

IIRC something like this was being worked on. Can't remember which dev was doing it, though.

[biostem]

1 hour ago, Wispur said:

Generally the bar for joining a Hamidon league is saying in Broadcast "Here for Hami" and that's it.
If that's too much of a hurdle to overcome, I don't know what to say, lol.

I get that, and that's great.  Here's my contention;  If you are going to exempt "solo players" because they don't want to join the league, then at the same time, you need some sort of guarantee and/or method of redress, for players that are not invited or kicked for anything outside of glaring and obvious griefing or breaches of the ToS.   The last thing we need is to implement additional ways for players "in the clique" to ban or otherwise exclude those who aren't...

[Lunar Ronin]

4 minutes ago, biostem said:

I get that, and that's great.  Here's my contention;  If you are going to exempt "solo players" because they don't want to join the league, then at the same time, you need some sort of guarantee and/or method of redress, for players that are not invited or kicked for anything outside of glaring and obvious griefing or breaches of the ToS.   The last thing we need is to implement additional ways for players "in the clique" to ban or otherwise exclude those who aren't...

 

Form your own raid with your own league then.  Been there, done that.

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Lunar Ronin said:

Form your own raid with your own league then.  Been there, done that.

Way to not address the points I brought up.

[Lunar Ronin]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

Way to not address the points I brought up.

 

I addressed it.  You said that you want to be able to force raid and Incarnate trial leaders to take any and all players unless they're breaking Homecoming's ToS.  Life doesn't work that way.  It sucks being excluded from things, but you can form your own raids and trials with your own leagues.

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, Lunar Ronin said:

 

I addressed it.  You said that you want to be able to force raid and Incarnate trial leaders to take any and all players unless they're breaking Homecoming's ToS.  Life doesn't work that way.  It sucks being excluded from things, but you can form your own raids and trials with your own leagues.

And being a leader is difficult. You have to actually interact with others and get them on the same page. Just announcing your instructions on league chat despite the zone holding more players than a league can have is asking for players to not have a clue what they are supposed to do and not doing what you want them to. And cutting out players because they pop in the zone too late to join the league or because they would rather not be in the league and be inundated with all the random chatter but would rather just follow along, helping out as best they can, because one or two other players that are blacklisted is an extreme response punishing innocent players. The shotgun approach to punishing bad actors always gets innocents as well.

[biostem]

9 minutes ago, Lunar Ronin said:

I addressed it.  You said that you want to be able to force raid and Incarnate trial leaders to take any and all players unless they're breaking Homecoming's ToS.  Life doesn't work that way.  It sucks being excluded from things, but you can form your own raids and trials with your own leagues.

And you want to be able to force other players to submit to the whims or demands of raid and incarnate trial leaders or miss out on said content.  Heck, the content could be like 99% complete, and said leaders could simply boot people to deny them the rewards.

Edited May 7 by biostem

[macskull]

2 hours ago, Frozen Burn said:

But the other side to that is, if 6 or so people are just AFKing / leeching - do they cause a "Yellow Dawn"?  Do they cause the raid to fail?  I doubt it.  Did they prevent you from doing what you came to the Hive/Abyss to do (hunt GMs, then the Mitos, and then Hami)?  No, they did not.  Again, unless they grief in some way to cause a raid to fail - then they really have no impact on you or what you do.  Ignore them and be happy about your experience.

With a 50-player cap in the zone, a handful of people who aren’t actively involved in the event absolutely can result in failing. The raid leader can adjust their strategy to mitigate this risk but then that falls onto the raid leader to 1) correctly guess whether there are enough potentially “AFK” players in the zone for it to be a problem, and 2) communicate the change in strategy to the group at large, who may not be familiar with the new strategy. This wasn’t at all a concern when the zone cap for the Hive and Abyss was accidentally bumped way up in early/mid 2019 but it became one once the 50-player cap was restored.

 

2 hours ago, Frozen Burn said:

And if it's really justice you want.... When you're defeating Hami and they are AFK'ing AOEs or jumping in for their few hits... Incan the league out and let Hami kill them.  Doing that right as the mitos respawn too.  Sure, you'd have to kill the mitos again.  but you could also do it again at 50% and 25% Hami health.  You could get a little justice/revenge that way, and just perhaps, they might learn a lesson.  😄  

This would not solve anything and would more likely than not cause the raid to fail, because half the people on the league will have TP prompt on so they’ll get blasted too, and instead of killing Hami you’ll just have a full-health Hami with three or four sets of mitos which you’ll then have to meticulously clear or give up and wait for a zone reset. And if you do manage to recover from that, the dead people in the bowl already got their hit in so they’ll still get credit for the defeat at the end as long as they don’t move.

 

EDIT: I don’t particularly care about the arguments around the one or two people at a raid who aren’t on the league. The zone cap at 50 and league cap at 48 are incompatible with each other, much like how hot dog buns come in packs of 8 and hot dogs come in packs of 10. A full zone is always going to have at least two players who aren’t on the league. There may be a perception from some on the league that those players aren’t participating, but a cursory glance at name colors during the entire event should make it obvious whether that’s actually true. A good raid leader should already be doing this. An instanced raid does not make things more difficult for soloists; rather, it makes things easier for the raid leader and significantly minimizes the risk a griefer poses to the event.

 

EDIT 2: Even if an instanced Hami raid accomplished nothing else, it would still provide a solution to the dozens and dozens of wasted man-hours spent across the servers each and every day by players waiting around to secure a spot at a raid.

Edited May 7 by macskull

[Oklahoman]

3 hours ago, Americas Angel said:

IIRC something like this was being worked on. Can't remember which dev was doing it, though.

 

Are they open to bribery, and/or do you have any blackmail on them?

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

5 hours ago, Rudra said:

Because I know a person that to the best of my knowledge did nothing wrong but got blacklisted because of a personal matter between her and the league leader

 

Tell your friend to visit Glacier Peak on Indomitable.  I hear they are looking for new blood on Hammy raids!  😇

[Seed22]

4 hours ago, Rudra said:

No one is asking for changes to league events to cater to solo play. The request is to not implement changes to league events to cut out solo play.

What are you doing solo in a hami raid thats of an significance? The only reason people play solo in this instance is because they missed a spot on the league, or want to troll.

 

You trying to make it easier for trolls?

[Rudra]

12 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

4 hours ago, Rudra said:

No one is asking for changes to league events to cater to solo play. The request is to not implement changes to league events to cut out solo play.

What are you doing solo in a hami raid thats of an significance? The only reason people play solo in this instance is because they missed a spot on the league, or want to troll.

 

You trying to make it easier for trolls?

If you read all my comments, then you would see that on the rare occasion I go to a Hami raid, I join the league. There are others that choose not to though, and none of them that I was there to see were trolling the raid. So let me ask you your question in reverse. What is any solo person doing that is of significant problem to the raid? The only argument I saw that holds any real weight is people not staying in the bowl for when the buds spawn, so the buds may spawn out of view. And that can be remedied by making the buds always marked on the map. If they are marked on the map, then who cares where they spawn? That takes away others' ability to troll. Without taking away the ability for people that don't make it in time to actually be on the league despite getting in the zone or those that prefer to not be on the league for whatever reason to contribute to the raid. There is a means of neutralizing trolls' ability to troll without punishing everyone else.

 

Edited May 7 by Rudra
Edited to add missed "then you would see that". And again to correct "significance" to "significant problem".

[Laucianna]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

If you read all my comments, then you would see that on the rare occasion I go to a Hami raid, I join the league. There are others that choose not to though, and none of them that I was there to see were trolling the raid. So let me ask you your question in reverse. What is any solo person doing that is of significance to the raid? The only argument I saw that holds any real weight is people not staying in the bowl for when the buds spawn, so the buds may spawn out of view. And that can be remedied by making the buds always marked on the map. If they are marked on the map, then who cares where they spawn? That takes away others' ability to troll. Without taking away the ability for people that don't make it in time to actually be on the league despite getting in the zone or those that prefer to not be on the league for whatever reason to contribute to the raid. There is a means of neutralizing trolls' ability to troll without punishing everyone else.

 

I feel like we may all be going slightly off topic here and going on about solo players vs league players which whilst slightly relevant is not the point of the suggestion. The suggestion is to give league leads better control over the content they run, be it from not having to arrive an hour early, or from choosing not to invite bad apples to the event 🙂 There's no point going in circles so can we agree to disagree about that part of the suggestion and move onto more productive conversations about the suggestion ❤️ 

[shortguy on indom]

• Collectivism - Prioritizes benefits for a group over an individual.

 

[GM Crumpet]

Without getting into the pro's and cons that people have mentioned, and speaking as a player rather than a GM, I like the idea of the option of an instanced version. These things go in cycles. The MSR instance languished unused for a long time, but has started to pick up in popularity on Excelsior. Now it's at least 50/50 which version the league leader runs.

 

Each shard has their own way of running these two events, and it's up to the league leaders how they decide to run them. An instanced version would be one more tool for the league leaders to use if they wish. 

 

Saying that, I don't know how hard or easy it would be for the devs to make an instanced version. They also have a lot to do so it's a matter of someone having the time to actually create an instanced version. It also might be an absolute nightmare to create. 

 

Hami is the only one where multi boxing is forbidden. We relaxed the rule on MSR a long time ago, but Hami is a special case.

Edited May 7 by GM Crumpet