Max engage question

[samm]

Genuinely want to know this question, If I am buffing someone in like Caemy throne room and max engage is only letting one person a mob on, am I allowed to remove my weapon so that my group member can get on as well? Something similar happened and I was too afraid to tell my group member to let me on that way because of the other people getting zapped and not sure if that fell in the same area of loophole abuse, so we just ate a bunch of fireballs and died.

[Kiltwich]

I believe the abuse comes in when you re-wield your weapon to get around max engage.

if you were, say, to unwield you weapon and leave it unwielded and solely punching the target with your bare hands, perhaps with some kicking for good measure if you have it prac'd, you would not be violating any rules regarding bypassing or abusing bugs to get around max engage.

alternatively, if the dreadlord is running a weave timer, they are not holding any doors closed -- opening one of the doors, fleeing, and then running to hide somewhere else in the palace would be advised.

[Korsik]

I believe the abuse comes in when you re-wield your weapon to get around max engage.

if you were, say, to unwield you weapon and leave it unwielded and solely punching the target with your bare hands, perhaps with some kicking for good measure if you have it prac'd, you would not be violating any rules regarding bypassing or abusing bugs to get around max engage.

No, this is also abuse. Removing your weapon allows other players to engage in a scenario they normally would not be able to engage. While being weaponless seems harmless, the additional player(s) or mobs joining combat will lead to parry being split further and increasing the rate at which hits will land.

[Foil]

I think that's a weird stance to take on that proposed situation. Removing the weapon to allow others on and re wielding it I agree that would be max engage. However, removing the weapon and keeping it removed for the duration of combat seems completely fine. Max engaged is based on the weapon wielded, so if you aren't wielding max engage is different. It's only really an exploit if you circumvent it by re-wielding. Would it be abuse if people rolled around without weapons all the time to have a higher engage count on a target? Like if a fade lead 5 trollocs, all the trollocs just went bareknuckle to have a higher engage count and only the fade wielded a weapon while berserk, would we consider that abuse?

[Rig]

I think the example Korsik is making is referring to being somewhere like Caemlyn throne and removing weapon to allow more mobs to engage through max engage. That seems more like an exploit, rather than a bunch of trolls just throwing hands while the fade is zerk.

[Foil]

I guess I am just not getting it. Unless there is some bug dealing with not wielding a weapon and max engage the provided example isn't an example of abuse.

In the proposed example you have two different character states. Character state A wielding weapon, character state B not wielding a weapon. Character state A cannot engage, character state B can. So unless you are using state B to make state A possible it isn't abuse. All that is based upon me not knowing if there is a bug associated with not wielding a weapon. Perhaps, for all I know, you can have an infinite number of opponents engaged on you if they are not wielding weapons if that is the case then I can see the abuse in fighting someone without a weapon.

[Korsik]

It comes down to being engaged. If you are engaged, removing your weapon changes the max engage equation. If others are unable to engage, removing your weapon bypasses the intended mechanic even if you do not rewield.

Hope that clarifies.

[Eol]

I don't think you should regulate this. Spare yourself a rule.

If anything the main smob should just assist first. Problem solved. Gawyn or Shadowsmith assisted. The player who went to the smob got what they needed.

Reading the loophole text in the Rules Page - it looks infinitely more ridiculous when a person dies because a musician or a haggard trolloc slave assists (instead of the shadowsmith or Gawyn) then someone removing their weapon.

Why create a situation that you can't explain to a new player?

I don't need a response. I don't deserve a response. But ask yourself - what is the worst that happens if someone breaks this rule? The game doesn't break. Some mobs assist. Life goes on. It seems like there's way worse rule breaking going on in the game.

[Prykor]

I don't think you should regulate this. Spare yourself a rule.

If anything the main smob should just assist first. Problem solved. Gawyn or Shadowsmith assisted. The player who went to the smob got what they needed.

Reading the loophole text in the Rules Page - it looks infinitely more ridiculous when a person dies because a musician or a haggard trolloc slave assists (instead of the shadowsmith or Gawyn) then someone removing their weapon.

Why create a situation that you can't explain to a new player?

I don't need a response. I don't deserve a response. But ask yourself - what is the worst that happens if someone breaks this rule? The game doesn't break. Some mobs assist. Life goes on. It seems like there's way worse rule breaking going on in the game.

Seconding most of this. removal of a weapon in hope that mobs help is at best a desperation play -- and should be an available tactic. It is abuse in the same way that auto-wimpy to current health minus 1 so that you only get bashed for 0/1 rounds due to auto-flee on the bash hit damage to bypass being sat for the intended two full two rounds is abuse.
now, a group of folks unwielding their weapons after landing a bash to get to max engage and re-wielding to deal notably above-engange threshold levels of damage -- clearly a violation.

2/3 of the power of a full dodge set is a hodgepodge of legacy Dikumud quirks (max engage shenanigans with last-to-enter mob being the first to assist leaving the patty leader at the end of the queue, 0/1-round bashes) and the last depends on the set up of the opponent - non/basher or non-rare combo weapon that has no chance to land a bash and 0 chance to break your defense, or a mounted bonded gaidin with stupid stacking OB bonuses that bashes you equally well as they would an abs char while also able to break 300 defense in straight melee as a somewhat common occurance. I would advocate for the removal of those mud engine quirks that only apply to one set up, and with those quirks ironed out, the mud is in a better state for all defenses to play by the same rules, and get to better overall balance for dodge.

[samm]

yeah not even trying to get into what should be or should not be, takeaway is this:

rem weapon to get around max engage is not okay, so only go to throne if you have enough bash to land or you will only get one weak mob assisting you.

horse targeting to get around faceoff is still ok, so target horses if you want to get on the same person