Leapfrogging

[ziggyholiday]

First to have X amount of players in zone shouldn't matter at all unless that amount is what it takes to take the mob out.

First to have the raid force required to kill the mob AND pulling trash should have first go at the mob. The other raid(s) can sit and watch them down the mob or fail and pick it up after them.

Setting something up like "first to have 15 in zone gets mob" is retarded because people will stay in that zone with the min required for as long as it takes. Additionally just because you can handle trash doesn't mean you can handle the boss.

If it takes 30+ to kill target A then the first guild in zone and pulling trash with 30+ gets first try.

[Vothsisx]

Originally Posted by Jaco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On live everything was sum up into the "Play Nice Policy", you know the saying don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.

So when one guild was zoning into a plane no other guild would zone zone in to compete.
Same with a mob spawned, if one raid force is ready to engage, no one would rush them, but would wait till they either kill or fail.
Ofc after a failed attempt they would talk to 1st raid force to check wether they would give it another shot or if the 2nd raid force could go for it. Otherwise its killstealing, period.
It was basically the rules setup by the dominating guild(s) on my server, Mith Marr.

This is what I remember as well, though I did not play on MM.

Spawn variance also encourages spawn camping and zerg guilds to sit 24/7 waiting for repop.. Please remove it, on live it was a set timer, so you don't "need" to camp, you come, if you are the first here you kill and if not you leave the place.
Just kick/port out/temp ban any guild that is camping an unspawned mob and won't see it anymore.

And please no rotation, if one guild is better than others at raiding then they deserve any kill, if others sit around semi afk or cant mobilize fast enough, then its too bad for them.

People will still "camp" a raid mob if it is due. While off topic, I believe it's appropriate to convey this story:

Guild A is waiting at the ice wall in Kael with 6 people. Statue is due up that night.
Guild B has been clearing the arena with a raid force for some time. They know Statue is due as well. As they have a raid gathered, they go and sit in Statue's room hoping to kill him.
Guild A calls leapfrogging. Guild B calls BS, as no mob was up.
Statue pops. Guild B kills Statue.
While Guild B does loot from Statue, Guild A zones in in full force and kills Idol. Guild A then gives B an ultimatum to pull AoW or they will.
Guild A then trains AoW onto guild B while they are doing loot, rezzing, etc.

Apologies again for the derail, but this is a valid problem that will come up once Kunark and SoV are up.

[Noleafclover]

Originally Posted by ziggyholiday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First to have X amount of players in zone shouldn't matter at all unless that amount is what it takes to take the mob out.

First to have the raid force required to kill the mob AND pulling trash should have first go at the mob. The other raid(s) can sit and watch them down the mob or fail and pick it up after them.

Setting something up like "first to have 15 in zone gets mob" is retarded because people will stay in that zone with the min required for as long as it takes. Additionally just because you can handle trash doesn't mean you can handle the boss.

If it takes 30+ to kill target A then the first guild in zone and pulling trash with 30+ gets first try.

The reason the numbers are presently 15 is BECAUSE that's about the amount for almost all present raid bosses.

I like keeping timers for post-boss spawns 'cause that keeps things moving, people shouldn't be allowed to leisurely clear trash and wait an hour and a half for 60+ people to show up.

And as for the second-to-last paragraph, Rogean said he had a change planned for before the mob. Since we currently camp, any change would presumably be to something other than poopsocking.

Most importantly, I hereby demand the forum spellchecker recognize "poopsocking."

[azeth]

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guild 1 is sitting at the ent to NToV with 10 people (even a solid 10 people, main tank, clerics, whomever) and decides to start trash pulling while the remaining 10 show up for Eashen. If Guild 2 arrives 20 strong with Guild 1 still around 10, they would have been able to technically "leapfrog" Guild 1 by finishing trash pulls on the way to Eashen.

In the above example I can see where/how GM's would get involved if for instance Guild 1 (the one that was leapfrogged due to low numbers) ended up with 20 people in their raid before Guild 2 made it to Eashen.

So who technically gets the named? Consider - Guild 1 started trash, but without numbers. Guild 2 arrived with reasonable numbers and began trash, but Guild 1 accumulated a raid force before Eashen was engaged. In this instance I'm positive a GM would have granted the first chance at Eashen to Guild 2 IF they could provide proof via screenshot of Guild 1's numbers (10 people) at the time Guild 2 engaged trash with a raid-sized force.

I'm not quoting this because I wrote it, but over a few pages I feel people have in their owns words agreed to the end result of this example.

Can anyone argue in this example that Guild 2 does not deserve rights to the first shot on Eashen?

[Chicka]

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not quoting this because I wrote it, but over a few pages I feel people have in their owns words agreed to the end result of this example.

Can anyone argue in this example that Guild 2 does not deserve rights to the first shot on Eashen?

Sure, they haven't engaged. There are sometimes player rules regarding trash, but any guild could ignore those. Usually though, it is not trash but a key mob that defines the start of engagement with an encounter.

[Atern]

On Tholuxe it was always first to engage the mob in question when I was involved. I never raided VT, but for areas like NToV, even when a guild would kill Aary, there were times when 2 guilds would kill the flurries and then move in different directions to kill the other dragons. The only time GMs got involved was if 2 guilds were on the same mob and one of them petitioned. Training happened, but it didn't usually bring about GM involvement. It was a total FFA to the point of engaging the mob.

[owenh]

on the rathe server we had a calender that all the other big guilds shared and on x day it was our turn for fear (whatever ) and if we wiped any of the other raid guilds that could get a force up could come do it. BoTs was the biggest guild and the shadiest and they respected the arrangement too... there was never any big problems with ks'ing or leapfrogging. granted we were a smaller raid guild so we only got like 2 shots a month at fear and 2 for hate but after kunark and velious that wasn't an issue anymore

[Tork]

In LoS, we called it steamrolling - and we liked it.

On the face of things, I have no issue with it - contention, competition and conflict made EQ a better game - nothing was a lock, and if you wanted it, you had enough unemployed college kids who could count to 3 and press CH, you took it.

Rotation, sharing and other such words are best saved for internet porn.

[Chicka]

Originally Posted by owenh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

on the rathe server we had a calender that all the other big guilds shared and on x day it was our turn for fear (whatever ) and if we wiped any of the other raid guilds that could get a force up could come do it. BoTs was the biggest guild and the shadiest and they respected the arrangement too... there was never any big problems with ks'ing or leapfrogging. granted we were a smaller raid guild so we only got like 2 shots a month at fear and 2 for hate but after kunark and velious that wasn't an issue anymore

Wait, you had a rotation to clear trash?

[Jeice]

Originally Posted by Tork [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In LoS, we called it steamrolling - and we liked it.

On the face of things, I have no issue with it - contention, competition and conflict made EQ a better game - nothing was a lock, and if you wanted it, you had enough unemployed college kids who could count to 3 and press CH, you took it.

Rotation, sharing and other such words are best saved for internet porn.

This