Leapfrogging

[Rogean]

So I'm curious.

People who played live back in the day, on servers that did NOT have forced raid mob rotations, how did the GM's there handle a situation where Guild A is clearing trash towards a raid boss and is completely leapfrogged by Guild B which rushes to engage the mob when Guild A sits down to med. Obviously this is one large reason we are hesitant to go with a first to engage policy, but I'm curious to hear the answers and suggestions.

Also keep in mind there may frequently be situations where two guilds start clearing at the same time, leapfrogging eachother.

[azeth]

On Rodcet Nife the first guild to engage trash (drakes on the way to NToV named, trash Giants toward King etc) had a player-implemented "right" to whichever named they so choose.

If Zone X had named A + B. Guilds 1, 2, 3 could be inside waiting for forces to gather, but if Guild 4 shows up and starts clearing, they get whichever target they so choose.

In the situation where we saw camped mages for CoH, this same "rule" stayed true. GM's did get involved, unsure how frequently, and afaik the guild who best argued that it was the first to start clearing, was allowed to stay.

[Rogean]

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

On Rodcet Nife the first guild to engage trash (drakes on the way to NToV named, trash Giants toward King etc) had a player-implemented "right"

What if a guild starts clearing trash with only a single group while it waits for the rest of it's members to show up?

[azeth]

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

What if a guild starts clearing trash with only a single group while it waits for the rest of it's members to show up?

edited - It really (always) came down to who best provided proof they were first to start clearing with a reasonable amount of people. Reasonable meaning enough people to handle the target, not just the trash.

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 at the time Guild 2 engaged trash with a raid-sized force.

[Melias]

During Luclin the first guild to kill Blob 1 in VT had claim to the rest of the zone until they left.

Also, single group clears for a raid were never really acknowledged.

GMs didn't intervene unless training occured (in which case it was ultimately just hearsay), or the other guild tried to killsteal the raid mob. They let the community sort it out 95% of the time.

[Supreme]

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

So I'm curious.

People who played live back in the day, on servers that did NOT have forced raid mob rotations, how did the GM's there handle a situation where Guild A is clearing trash towards a raid boss and is completely leapfrogged by Guild B which rushes to engage the mob when Guild A sits down to med. Obviously this is one large reason we are hesitant to go with a first to engage policy, but I'm curious to hear the answers and suggestions.

Also keep in mind there may frequently be situations where two guilds start clearing at the same time, leapfrogging eachother.

They did nothing. One group one kill..one loot. Solusek Ro was a good example so was Nameless. If your group got the kill you got the loot. End of discussion. Guilds would usually wait for them to either wipe then clean up the mess or engage and hope their DPS group got the XP.

At some point sony would recognize that having a server with TONS of raid worthy players and guilds was not financially effective and thus created other servers with /movelog to alleviate the problem.

I am sure that if GMs/Sony would have conceptualized the idea of "instancing" they would have implemented it pre-GOD era to retain player base as well. IMHO.

[Bumamgar]

I never had GMs enforce any sort of leapfrogging rules for single named (ie: trash clearing in Fear or clearing down to the Royals in Chardok, etc). There were only two cases on EMarr where there were leapfrogging standards that were upheld by GMs: NToV in Velious and Vex Thal in Luclin. In both cases there was a "key mob" that once killed was considered claim to the rest of the wing/zone. For NToV it was Aary, and for VT it was Blob 1.

To avoid getting leapfrogged on single mobs guilds developed strategies to minimize the risk of being leapfrogged. For example, instead of clearing down to the royals, a common tactic was to pull them to the zoneline. Other tactics involved training away the trash so that the raid could move in to the main target without clearing, etc.

[Humerox]

Found a link to a 3 day Guild Summit in San Diego hosted my Smed and crew. The problem is going to be your involvement in server issues and how they are handled. Your time is important...you don't need to be babysitting 24/7, and a system needs to be in place for the azzhats. Designing rules for submission of problems may be a start:



Policy:

The following issues may be submitted for a Guild Critical issue.
1) Spawn Disputes (When NPC triggers or Targets are spawned)
2) Raid Disruption (Training, Harassment, Kill Stealing, Leap Frogging, and Ninjalooting)
3) Character Flag Issues (NPC being under the world or not spawning). This may only be used if this affects a significant portion of your guild.
4) Incorrect Event Functionality

Guild Leaders will be limited to submitting a request 3 times a week during In-Game business hours Monday through Sunday (designate a time). We will be able to verify that the Guild Leaders are sending in the request based on their email address. If you have a new email address, please update your registration information, and let us know.

Procedure:
1) The Guild Leader submits a request to : <email>
2) Provide the one of the following text on the subject line: Guild Critical – Spawn Dispute, Guild Critical – NPC Name spawned, Guild Critical – Raid Disruption, Guild Critical – Flagging Issue, or Guild Critical – Event Dysfunction
3) Provide the Guild Leader, Guild, and Server name.
4) Please be as detailed as possible in your message by providing all parties involved including character names, NPC names, zone

Original article is:

HERE

[Kraun]

The GM's did nothing on the servers i played. Guild A cleared to Trak then would med .Guild B would just rush past and engage first. GM would tell Guild A tough luck and stop spamming petitions or your all banned.

[Starklen]

You dealt with it the ski mask way.