POL NEWS : GM Policy Update

[Dayner]

GM Policy of FINAL FANTASY XI was updated and the new category was added.

Following is the GM policy that was added.
For more details, please refer to GM Policy under Rules & Policies.

-Addition of new category "About Monster Holding"
As stated on About Monster Holding, it has been decided that GM will no longer interfere with the holding of monsters that are listed in the category.
Along with the update, section on monster holding has been removed from Inappropriate Behavior and became an individual category.

Please visit the below pages for GM Policy.

PlayOnline Viewer

FINAL FANTASY XI Top Page -> Rules & Policies -> GM Policy

FINAL FANTASY XI Official Site

https://secure.playonline.com/ff11us/rule/policy.shtml

http://www.playonline.com/ff11us/polnews/news11740.shtml

i guess HNM are jp time onry

 

[Redx]

, i hope they add the Rage effect to alot more NMs then...

 

[Vandoura]

God.. you really need to stop camping PoL! lol

anyway will monster holding be effected against normal mob?

like in cannon pt where brd hold 2-3 birdy/monster at a time?

 

[Redx]

don't think many people have made calls about BRDs holding XP mobs for faster chains, at least no calls were ever made against me for it ^^

 

[Zoner]

A little more from POL:

Monster holding refers to an instance where a player or players hold a monster so that they continue to maintain claim on the monster. This is especially prevalent with monsters that a large amount of players are interested in, such as a notorious monster. In the cases where there are no signs of effort to defeat the monster, and instead the player(s) are simply holding claim over the monster for a long period of time with the aim of keeping control of it; this is considered a grief tactic.

Monster holding can also be defined as a player or group of players attempting to regulate the time that a monster appears by keeping it claimed with the intention to shift its spawn time by delaying its defeat.. Another example of monster holding would be a player or group of players holding a monster until their friends came to help. In these types of situations, the GM staff will perceive this as monster holding if it continues over an excessive amount of time. In an effort to maintain an enjoyable game environment, the GM staff will intervene and take the appropriate action as necessary in these types of situations.

Once a GM confirms whether monster holding is occurring or not, the GM will instruct the player to either engage the monster in combat in an attempt to defeat it or release the claim on the monster in question. Players that do not follow a GM's instructions will become subject to account disciplinary actions.

However, in August 2005 we introduced a counter-measure to excessive monster holding by making specific monsters more powerful after a certain amount of time has passed. GMs will no longer interfere with these particular monsters. Some examples of monsters like this are as follows:

King Arthro / Simurgh / Roc / Serket / Capricious Cassie / Lord of Onzozo / Behemoth / King Behemoth / Adamantoise / Aspidochelone / Fafnir / Nidhogg

 

[Vandoura]

A little more from POL:

i talked to GM, he said monster holding is only related to NM claiming


so for all your brd/puller out there pull more then 2-3 normal monster for exp, don't worry about worrying getting ban from pulling too much lol

 

[hellstorm]

hmm guess they got tired of all the calls about people holding nms for people to get there. I can see the gil seller exploding this. xoxo claims Poisonhand Gnadgad, xoxo holds nm till all cc leave.

 

[Tristam Green]

hmm guess they got tired of all the calls about people holding nms for people to get there. I can see the gil seller exploding this. xoxo claims Poisonhand Gnadgad, xoxo holds nm till all cc leave.

However, in August 2005 we introduced a counter-measure to excessive monster holding by making specific monsters more powerful after a certain amount of time has passed. GMs will no longer interfere with these particular monsters. Some examples of monsters like this are as follows:

King Arthro / Simurgh / Roc / Serket / Capricious Cassie / Lord of Onzozo / Behemoth / King Behemoth / Adamantoise / Aspidochelone / Fafnir / Nidhogg

GMs will not interfere in holding issues with the above mentioned NMs, because anyone holding them will eventually get his/her ass handed to him/her on a silver plate.

Poisonhand would still fall under the "get a GM involved" territory, I think.

 

[Rappa]

I think people are reading this update wrong. The rule wasn't removed, it was just reclassified on the GM page and instead of being clumped in the "Inappropriate Behavior" section of the GM page it now has its own page. The rule is the same as it always was.

 

[Arctyrael]

Notice how Tia is not on that list. Tia does not Rage =P.

 

[Reko]

I think people are reading this update wrong. The rule wasn't removed, it was just reclassified on the GM page and instead of being clumped in the "Inappropriate Behavior" section of the GM page it now has its own page. The rule is the same as it always was.

It's in it's own cathegory, but they won't do anything if the monster he got called to can rage.
Because like Zoner said, when they rage, you're in for an assbeating anyway ^^

 

[Rappa]

It's in it's own cathegory, but they won't do anything if the monster he got called to can rage.
Because like Zoner said, when they rage, you're in for an assbeating anyway ^^

Yes, and this has been true since 2005. So like I said, the rule hasn't changed...

 

[LadyKiKi]

Brb while I go hold Bubbly Bernie to fuck you all over from doing that quest! :crazy:

 

[Tristam Green]

Brb while I go hold Bubbly Bernie to fuck you all over from doing that quest! :crazy:

Hidden Effect: Rage.

Seriously, a Raging Bubbly Bernie would kinda be funny.

 

[Reko]

Yes, and this has been true since 2005. So like I said, the rule hasn't changed...

Incorrect.
Was about 3 months or so ago I last saw a GM force another gang to give up claim.
Not saying it has been common though.

 

[Rappa]

Incorrect.
Was about 3 months or so ago I last saw a GM force another gang to give up claim.
Not saying it has been common though.

Then the GM was wrong. Just because a GM did something wrong doesn't mean the policy changed. They added rage specifically to prevent holding of these mobs, and have never forced someone to release a mob off that list with the notable exception of holding Knight Crabs or whatever they are called pre King Arthro popping as those could still be held.

 

[Reko]

Then the GM was wrong. Just because a GM did something wrong doesn't mean the policy changed. They added rage specifically to prevent holding of these mobs, and have never forced someone to release a mob off that list with the notable exception of holding Knight Crabs or whatever they are called pre King Arthro popping as those could still be held.

So if Policy didn't change, why does SE say they did change it?
Sorry, I knew I should have been more specific.
It was Aspid he forced them to give up, so once again, incorrect.

Or maybe it doesn't count since you obviously know wrong from right better than a GM?

 

[Rappa]

Or maybe it doesn't count since you obviously know wrong from right better than a GM?

I never said that. I said that GMs didn't force people to stop stalling a rage hnm because they didn't have to. As long as you kill it before it rages then you're fine stalling. If you couldn't do it then it raged and owned you, so either way you either killed it or you didn't. What you're basically saying is that they added the rage mechanic for no reason because they enforced anti-stalling anyway, which is silly. It might have happened on occasion, but how often did you see it happen? Once? That obviously means it happens all the time, right? Rage is a self-governing method of dealing with the situation so GMs could focus on more important things.

I'm not going to argue this point so call me stupid or whatever helps you sleep better at night and you all can go back to making bubbly bernie jokes, I don't really care.

 

[Reko]

I never said that. I said that GMs didn't force people to stop stalling a rage hnm because they didn't have to. As long as you kill it before it rages then you're fine stalling. If you couldn't do it then it raged and owned you, so either way you either killed it or you didn't. What you're basically saying is that they added the rage mechanic for no reason because they enforced anti-stalling anyway, which is silly. It might have happened on occasion, but how often did you see it happen? Once? That obviously means it happens all the time, right? Rage is a self-governing method of dealing with the situation so GMs could focus on more important things.

I'm not going to argue this point so call me stupid or whatever helps you sleep better at night and you all can go back to making bubbly bernie jokes, I don't really care.

Then the GM was wrong.

Can I get a wut?



I know why they added rage, and I never argued about anything regarding rage.
And like I said in my second post: "Not saying it has been common though."
But reading is tiresome I guess.

I have no reason to call you stupid, but I knew there would be an arguement right away.
Some people on these boards are never wrong and always know better.
Gotta get back to gustaberg now, cya later.

 

[Tristam Green]

I'm not going to argue this point so call me stupid or whatever helps you sleep better at night and you all can go back to making bubbly bernie jokes, I don't really care.

Bubbly Bernie and Serpopod Ishtar walk into a bar. Bartender looks at Serpopod Ishtar and says "why the long face, Elvaan?"