First Aggro + 15

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

This is a repost of my earlier proposal, but cleaned up and edited to incorporate suggestions. You can read the original and discussion on it in this thread... http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9927

The proposal consists of only one rule.

First Aggro + 15
==========
The first guild (or non-guild based raid force) to aggro a raid target gets 15 minutes to begin the fight as long as they maintain unbroken chain of aggro for the whole 15 minutes. No other forces may attempt to take aggro or KS from the first raid force unless the first force is unable to reduce the raid target to 95% or less health after 15 minutes or if the guild (or non-guild based raid force) loses aggro at any point. If either of those two conditions is met, then the mob becomes Free For All until the next person from a different raid force aggros. If all remaining live members of the first force who have engaged the target in any way have feigned death, the the aggro chain is considered broken, even if they have DoTs or other spells on the raid target that would cause re-aggro if the FD members were to stand up. In cases where the Raid mob instantly has people from multiple forces on its hate list due to spawning in the midst of multiple players, anyone who pulls aggro who is not from the same raid force as the player who got initial aggro will be considered guilty of KSing unless he or she backs off and allows the force with first aggro to reassert control. The guild who attained first aggro is free to allow the raid mob to kill any players from other guilds who were on the initial hate list from being with aggro range at spawn time, or any who appear on the hate list by trying to help others not from the force with first aggro who were.
==========

EDIT: The tentative definition of "begin the fight" will be: reduce the mob to 95% health or lower. -- Thanks Dawgrin
EDIT: Made language a bit more precise, and added new provision to handle camping "on the spawn point". -- Thanks Astarothel

That's it, that's the whole system right there.

I also have several suggestions to the dev team that I believe should be enacted to help this rule fulfill some of the goals we as a community and they as developers have in regards to the raiding scene on this server. These suggestions are needed to make a significant impact in the nature of the raiding scene on the server above and beyond my rule change. They are the complement that allows my one single rule to work. I will simply list the changes here. A discussion about the reasons for each change will follow in the second, third, and fourth posts of this thread.

1. Raid mobs should have a flat 6 hours added to their base spawn intervals with no variance. EDIT: -- no more variance, reduce camping

2. Raid mobs should have an line of text in /say triggered when they are aggro'd from a clear aggro list state that lists the name of the player who got aggro.

3. The punishments for KSing or Training on a raid target should be made much more severe, and escalate based on the number of previous offenses. I suggest a 30day account and IP ban for the offending party. I have seen other good suggestions ranging for a shorter ban, but for the whole guild, up to disbanding the entire guild and perma-banning the officers. As long as the punishments are severe, the purpose is served.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

The next 3 posts outline the reasoning behind my 3 suggestions to the dev team and an explanation of how they address the main goals of this raid rule. I think it would be useful now to explain what I interpreted those goals to be before continuing.

Goals for the Raid Rule
1. Ensure that raid mobs can span in any time zone
2. Limit the need for developer involvement "babysitting"
3. Promote competition based on skill related to game-play
4. Be compatible with the entrance of new players on the raiding scene
5. Be compatible with the addition of new raid targets to the game

Spawn Variance

The original reason for spawn variance was to make sure that a mob does not exclusively appear in the prime time of one time zone. It is intended to help distribute the mobs around the clock so that all time zones have a chance at getting the mob during their prime time. I think that this is the best usage of the spawn variance. However, the spawn variance that we are using is way too big. We tried to use it to make camping the mobs more difficult. However, as we can all see, this did not work... at all. So now, we have mob spawns that, combined with the raid rules agreed upon by the majority of the raiding guilds encourage 4 day rotating afk camps of the raid mobs. Camping is better discouraged by other means. So, that is why I propose eliminating the spawn variance and simply adding a flat 6 hours to the spawn time of raid bosses. This accomplished several things.

1. It guarantees that the mobs will progress around the clock within a few spawns giving the euros, aussies, and usa players all equal shots at the mobs during their own prime time.

2. It enhances the value of intelligence (knowledge of the mobs last time of death). Knowing the time of death is more important for not missing the next spawn with your tracker or raid force.

3. It keeps the number of raid spawns very close to their actual original spawn rate, which was the original intent for how fast raid level items were supposed to enter the game.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Mob Aggro Messages

Each raid target mob should have a message that they deliver in /say or /shout when they are aggro'd from the state of having a clear aggro list. It should be something along the lines of Lord Nagafen shouts, "How dare you presume to enter my lair, Dumesh! Ah, but I was getting hungry for some Troll anyway, do come in."

I'll admit this is a non-classic proposal, although I feel that it is in line with the classic philosophy. There are already a multitude of mobs that will /say something or emote something in response to being aggro'd from the state of having a clear aggro list. Death touching mobs will also specifically call out a players name. I imagine (hope) it would not be too difficult to add or modify these existing behaviors to have the /say incorporate the name of the player pulling aggro. It is certainly some work for the devs, but once the method is perfected, I believe that it wouldn't take very long to add it to each raid mob as Sky, Kunark, and Velious are added. I'm also sure the devs would have all the help they could want from the community for coming up with witty or clever lines for each mob as well.

This suggestion is directly related to goal #2. The devs won't have to spend much time sifting through logs, nor will the players have any ambiguity about who got aggro first.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Severe Punishments

I am promoting severe punishments for 2 reasons.

1. They will reduce the instances of players KSing raid mobs or training raid forces under my one rule of raiding.

2. Because of #1, the devs/guides/GMs will have a reduced demand for their services in moderating raid mob disputes.

There are existing rules of the server that prohibit KSing and training. These, combined with "First Aggro + 15" and Mob Aggro Messages present a situation where guilds can compete and know instantly and without error who won. Without adequate punishment for breaking the KSing and Training rules, guilds who lost the race to aggro, might be tempted to KS or train the winning guild in hopes of obtaining the loot, counting on the devs not wanting to investigate, or a lenient punishment. With adequate punishment, we should expect a grudging /say or /shout of "gg, guild x, you got him this time, but we'll be back." Perhaps it won't be an instant transition, but it should come swiftly if a few guilds actually do KS and face the new punishments.

Ultimately, I hope for developer and player response to make sure that this does satisfy all the major goals of both parties with regard to the raiding scene, and subsequent response from the developers to enact this as server policy.

Lastly, let me implore the community to keep this thread shit-free. Please present your opinion of the system if you like. Please present constructive criticism if you like. Please try to argue the merits of particular points where you can, which is much more useful than just saying "ur plan sux, dude!" If you must troll, make a new post in R&F about how big of a douche you think I am. I'll come play in there, I promise.

[Cogwell]

I'd like to make a reservation for 8:30, non-smoking.

[gnomishfirework]

I think there are rules already in place.

[Dawgrin]

I just had a couple questions.

1. What is the definition of "Begin the fight"? Does this mean that the group represented by the person who got first aggro has 15 minutes to get a tank on the mob, and if the mob is not "controlled" by a tank within 15 minutes the mob becomes FFA?

2. Is there any time limit imposed after the fight has begun?

3. What happens if the fight has begun, but then control is lost, but aggro is not, say in the case of tanks losing control and the fight devolving into an exercise in kiting?


I liked the idea of each raid mob having a unique statement naming the person who aggroed them when they are initially aggroed. Not entirely classic but very much within the "spirit" of classic IMO

[guineapig]

I just had a couple questions.

1. What is the definition of "Begin the fight"? Does this mean that the group represented by the person who got first aggro has 15 minutes to get a tank on the mob, and if the mob is not "controlled" by a tank within 15 minutes the mob becomes FFA?

I would assume beginning the fight means doing something detrimental to the mob. Be it damage or debuff.


2. Is there any time limit imposed after the fight has begun?


I would assume it's either the mob dies or the raid wipes. As soon as the raid wipes the next guild can move in.


3. What happens if the fight has begun, but then control is lost, but aggro is not, say in the case of tanks losing control and the fight devolving into an exercise in kiting?


I'm pretty sure that the raid bosses all summon so I don't think kiting is an option. If this is incorrect however then it should be addressed. Honestly though if somebody is able to effectively solo or duo a raid mob to death than more power to them. They should not loose the target just because there's only a chanter cleric and necro left after the rest of the raid died.

However, if the only people that are left alive are FD or something like that then you have just completely wiped the aggro from your raid and lost your shot.



I liked the idea of each raid mob having a unique statement naming the person who aggroed them when they are initially aggroed. Not entirely classic but very much within the "spirit" of classic IMO

Agreed!

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Excellent Questions.... let me take them 1 at a time.

1. What is the definition of "Begin the fight"? Does this mean that the group represented by the person who got first aggro has 15 minutes to get a tank on the mob, and if the mob is not "controlled" by a tank within 15 minutes the mob becomes FFA?

This point deserves more discussion. I was not 100% sure I wanted to go with put a tank on it, because that might limit valid strategies for killing the mob. What if a force of 24 magicians showed up to take a mob? Perhaps, taking the mob below 95% health is an appropriate signal that the fight has begun?

2. Is there any time limit imposed after the fight has begun?

No. If they don't wipe or lose aggro, they can keep fighting until they do or the mob dies.

3. What happens if the fight has begun, but then control is lost, but aggro is not, say in the case of tanks losing control and the fight devolving into an exercise in kiting?

I'm inclined to give the same answer as question #2. Recovering from lost control without wiping is definitely related to skill at playing the game. I am against punishing that. Other guilds hanging around hoping for the first to fail, must wait until the first force actually fails, which I have defined as losing all aggro, or now, let's say failing to deal 5% damage to the mob over the first 15 minutes.

I liked the idea of each raid mob having a unique statement naming the person who aggroed them when they are initially aggroed. Not entirely classic but very much within the "spirit" of classic IMO

Thanks for your input.

[Dawgrin]

I'm pretty sure that the raid bosses all summon so I don't think kiting is an option. If this is incorrect however then it should be addressed. Honestly though if somebody is able to effectively solo or duo a raid mob to death than more power to them. They should not loose the target just because there's only a chanter cleric and necro left after the rest of the raid died.

What I had in mind when I asked this question was preventing some sort of stalling tactic where you would do very minor damage (not enough to start the mob summoning). and then kite it around for a couple hours til your raid is ready...

[Dawgrin]

This point deserves more discussion. I was not 100% sure I wanted to go with put a tank on it, because that might limit valid strategies for killing the mob. What if a force of 24 magicians showed up to take a mob? Perhaps, taking the mob below 95% health is an appropriate signal that the fight has begun?

That sounds like a good idea. That way the mob will have begun to summon and the fight will really be on.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

What I had in mind when I asked this question was preventing some sort of stalling tactic where you would do very minor damage (not enough to start the mob summoning). and then kite it around for a couple hours til your raid is ready...

This should be covered by the provision to reduce the mob at least 5% in the first 15 minutes. That will trigger summoning on all mobs that can summon. It requires that the force engaging is actually trying to kill the mob, instead of just kite it. If someone can provide any examples of mobs that might still be a problem under this system, then we can consider modifying things to require that 5% damage is done every 10 minutes or something like that (which would indicate that the kiters are killing the mob, not just stalling), but I would prefer to avoid complicating the rules for something that is extremely unlikely or indeed impossible.

Cool, we're on the same page, I think.

[Leokaiser]

At inital glance these rules seem fairly solid, and certainly preferable to the situation which is currently described.

[Nizzarr]

I like your relentless will to try to find a way to change the current raiding scenes, but unfortunately your rules/ideas doesnt have any practical usefulness toward the current raiding content.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

I like your relentless will to try to find a way to change the current raiding scenes, but unfortunately your rules/ideas doesnt have any practical usefulness toward the current raiding content.

Would you care to elaborate? How does my system fail on each of the current 6 raid targets? Can you describe a scenario that you see going down under my raid rule and how that scenario constitutes a failure?

[Phallax]

Would you care to elaborate? How does my system fail on each of the current 6 raid targets? Can you describe a scenario that you see going down under my raid rule and how that scenario constitutes a failure?

It still promotes camping. Which is what were trying to get away from.

[Akame]

It still promotes camping. Which is what were trying to get away from.

Camping cannot ever be fully removed from a game. It is a part of Everquest. What it does remove is the "requirement" that the players have imposed that 15 people must camp the mob. It also reduces the time that the mob must be camped.

[Fahn]

It still promotes camping. Which is what were trying to get away from.

While I am not to the raid scene yet on the server. I can point out that the only way to eliminate camping would be.

1. Set spawn times that everyone knows.
or
2. A rotation or a semi-rotation similar to Suicide Kings proposal.

I remember on Bristlebane back just before kunark and ending sometime after velious, there was a respected rotation for the dragons and later on Hate. It worked fairly well for some time, till no one raided it and there were enough targets for everyone.

Anyway, yall better figure all this out before I get there!

[Leokaiser]

Under this system, if you camp a spawn, you will still indeed have the advantage, but it won't be a foregone conclusion as it is right now. If two raids are camping, it won't matter which showed up first and spent the most time there (afk!), first try will go to the raid that acts quickest. Theoretically, one raid that camped but isn't on the ball could lose out to a raid which has only just shown up but is ready to go.

Really, nothing short of a rotation will prevent camping the mob before it is going to spawn, but at least this way the camp need only commence before the variance window opens, not 4 days before.

[Dawgrin]

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

[Phallax]

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

While I am not to the raid scene yet on the server. I can point out that the only way to eliminate camping would be.

1. Set spawn times that everyone knows.
or
2. A rotation or a semi-rotation similar to Suicide Kings proposal.


Yes, #1 is very helpful. With no variation in spawn time, raid forces will not have to camp, they can just show up. However, this means that the raid mobs will be killed at the same time every week, with only an increment of a few minutes. This means that people in certain time zones just get shut out. The only way around that I can think of is to have the spawn times be a number of days +4 or +6 hours, so that they progress around the clock. However, even then, I prefer the variance, Here's an example of why:

Say on one particular Saturday... Vox was killed at 9:30am EST, Nagafen was killed at 10:15am EST, and Innoruuk was killed at 10:35am EST

With no variance, the next Saturday, raid forces could just kill one at the exact right time and know exactly how much time they had to move to the next target. This gives a huge advantage to the guild that killed the previous week who has a rock solid exact time of death.

However, with variance raid forces with some knowledge of time of death, even exact would have to decide which one they wanted to prepare for, since they couldn't be in all 3 places at the same time and the spawn windows would significantly overlap.

There is a balance involved. Overlapping spawn windows make it harder for one guild to monopolize content. Most people feel that is a good thing. To make spawn windows overlap, it helps for them to be long. However, the competing pressure is that longer spawn windows encourage camping. In the end, I thought just enough variance to progress the spawns around the clock was the best compromise. In my judgement, camping is a worse outcome than one guild using knowledge of Time of Death to monopolize spawns.

If two raids are camping, it won't matter which showed up first and spent the most time there (afk!), first try will go to the raid that acts quickest. Theoretically, one raid that camped but isn't on the ball could lose out to a raid which has only just shown up but is ready to go.

That is exactly the point. If guild X shows up 20 min before the spawn and is on the ball, they can get the mob over guild Y who has been there for 15 hours and barely has any eyeballs on the screen cause half are afk, a third are alt-tabbed, and the rest are weary.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

It still promotes camping. Which is what were trying to get away from.

I am looking at the best ways to mitigate something that will likely always be present, while giving a level playing field to all time zones, and encouraging competition.

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

All parties will never agree to give up a behavior that enhances their chances of getting loot under the rules in effect. So, can we please end that line of argument?

As for a rotation, there are two serious problems that make a rotation a non-starter.

1. Unless it is GM enforced, a raid force that doesn't like it can simply ignore it, and GMs have said they WILL NOT manage a rotation for us. Any rotation would have to be player created, player agreed upon, and player enforced... which brings me to point #2.

2. There will always be enough players on the server that prefer competition to a rotation to band together and race for raid targets. Without GM enforcement of the rotation those people who want to compete for spawns will gather together and do so, not caring at all which group the rotation says is supposed to get the mob.

Until someone can convince me that one or both of those statements is false, I will consider ideas of a rotation to be non-starters. If anyone has a rebuttal to this line of argument, can we move that discussion on the viability and nature of any potential rotation system to its own thread?

[Leokaiser]

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will.

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed. As things stand, however, the rules actively encourage camping. I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

[Akame]

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. .

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

[astarothel]

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed.

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?

[Fahn]

First off just want to say that I was in no way advocating either solution in my previous post. Was just saying.

In essence the only way to eliminate camping is a rotation agreement of sorts.

And again before I continue want to say I am not advocating any solution, just pointing out things I see.

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Collusion like that only works when certain conditions are met.

1. The parties colluding must have the means to lock out outside competition.

2. None of the colluding parties can believe they could be better off by cheating their partners.

Number 1 is impossible without the rotation or agreement being GM enforced, which is somewhere between "highly unlikely" and "never hapening" given previous dev statements on rotations.

Number 2 is a rare and elusive balance that never seems to last for long. Members of real life cartels are forever stabbing each other in the back and looking for advantages. A little research on OPEC or the Columbian drug trade should satisfy anyone's curiosity on that point. Even if that balance was ever achieved, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.

Bah, here I go discussing rotations in my own thread again :( Bad Dumesh!

[Leokaiser]

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

I think the amount of debate going on and the vast differences in opinion expressed indicates there is no 'bulletproof argument'. Some people want strictly moderated rotations, others FFA with no rules beyond that. I entirely agree that this is a matter people will have to compromise on, and I imagine the matter will be (or perhaps should be) decided by which manner of compromise is the most reasonable and/or has the most popular support and provides the least amount of work for GMs.

As said, views on the subject vary, but as for me...

I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

:)

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

[Fahn]

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Absolutely right, moreover a strong exclusive rotation will discourage other guilds from becoming raiders. As a leader of an up and coming guild this does not bode well for me.

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Any agreement between guilds should only between the guilds, no GM involved. And it would be up to the character of the players to allow for variations to the rule. Something I hope that could happen.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

I think the amount of debate going on and the vast differences in opinion expressed indicates there is no 'bulletproof argument'. ... and I imagine the matter will be (or perhaps should be) decided by which manner of compromise is the most reasonable and/or has the most popular support and provides the least amount of work for GMs.

Certainly, peoples' preferences are varied. I never expected that everyone will convert to the same preference. However, what is not strictly a matter of opinion, what can be analyzed and predicted are the consequences of a set of rules. The accuracy of these predictions can be argued logically. Then the consequences can be debated for their desirability.

Really though, I suppose my argument is mostly targeted at the devs since I am proposing rules changes and not pushing for an agreement between players. Whatever players agree on above and beyond the server rules is nice and all, but ultimately, such agreements are not the end all be all of player behavior. Some players are not constrained by other players' agreements, but only by the rules. I posted publicly though because I wanted to draw on the collective intelligence of the playerbase (or at least he segment that reads the forums) to refine my idea, pick out any holes in it, and also to gives the devs an impression of what various types of players think about it.

[Leokaiser]

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

[Fahn]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!
Any rotation would have to be agreed upon by ALL raiding guilds. A feat likely impossible as you have said. That is the only way to assure that everyone gets something out of it.


What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

A guild, providing it is one and not several, who do not comply with the rotation would simply be removed from it and the other guilds would have to come together to assure they rarely if ever get another raid target again. Until such case as they agree to follow the agreement. This again would require all raiding guilds to be in agreement and the GMs allowing the players to police themselves. And again stating that this is likely impossible. I can only see it happening if the GMs deem it not completely exclusive as to keep up and coming guilds out.


Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

[Fahn]

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

There are various solutions to these problems, it all depends on how the agreement is crafted. From only certain targets are on the menu. To having an open spot in the rotation to allow PuGs and so on. It all depends on the agreement. And again it would have to be NON-GM enforced, with is nigh impossible I understand.

But with that being said. I like this system for what it is, if the GMs decide to enforce anything, This would be the system. The ideas are refined as far as they are going to get in my opinion.

The only other GM action I could even fathom is if they forced the raiders to come to some sort of an agreement. And I just don't think they can / will for many many reasons.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!... Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

Cool, thanks for going back and forth with me a bit. I think productive arguments should usually be confrontational, just without malice or condescension. Thank you for your contributions. I agree, we aren't far off in viewpoint.

[astarothel]

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?

I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior.

That being said, here are some potential issues:

1) Raid groups will camp right on top of the target's spawn location, allowing it to aggro whomever it will the moment it spawns. These camping groups will presumably be less AFK than they are currently, but the issue still remains that they are camping. An extension of this will be the chaos that ensues, and the raid target's corresponding aggro spam line (it aggro'd on them, but WE picked it up, etc)

2) Redo the wording on the core rule itself to be more clear.
You have 'begin the fight' combined with an engagement based upon aggro.

I assume you mean "the first guild to aggro the target (with message indicator going off) has 15 minutes to do 5% damage to the target, and will subsequently be afforded one opportunity to kill the target".

3) What happens if the mob has been aggro'd and kited around for 15 minutes, but the 5% damage has not been done? The raid target will not issue a new aggro message if/when an other raid group (or groups) attempt to engage it.

4) Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab.

Blaming an entire group for one person's actions is not amazing either. Evidence: Abacab.

"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED DA -- WHAT AN IB LAPDOG"
"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED IB -- DA's CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE"

The second any member, or any group gets a ban they (or their guild) will immediately call foul, questioning the GM decision alleging GM favouritism, or the GM was wrong (fallibility usually asserted through claims of "ignorance or incomplete details regarding the situation").

Any ruleset will have elements of this problem. The system as proposed is frontloaded with the need for GM management and there is nothing in place once GMs have stopped babysitting to stop douchebaggery from commencing again starting a whole new cycle. This is why I believe FFA/first to engage is inherently no better for GM time and involvement than any ruleset that is or will be instituted.

5) A smaller spawn variance will only increase the camping for that period of time when the spawn window is open. Whether it is active camping or AFK it is irrelevant, camping will increase during those periods.

[astarothel]

pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system.

Not necessarily always the case, a fair ruleset must simply provide for their inclusion. However this is about First to Engage rather than a rotation, so that is all I will say in regards to that.

I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

I don't really see how it is more about mobilization that any other system proposed so far. It offers no solutions to camping as a whole, rather an indirect solution to AFK camping. Any sort of camping is the opposite of mobilization in my eyes.

Any explicit agreement between guilds or groups not to camp people other than trackers will neither last nor hold if it is not directly incorporated into firm ruleset somehow.

[Fahn]

Will yall stop picking on my "Gimme" sentences :/ they are exactly as they are supposed to be. Broad, positive and without merit.

And you are right asta. Any proposed system has a snowballs chance to actually be adopted.

[Bumamgar]

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.
Exactly. My guild on Errollisi Marr (Cries of Insurrection) ended the Venril Sathir/Trakanon rotation by simply ignoring it. The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time. The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.

Any non-GM enforced rotation on this server would suffer the same fate, and likely not even last a full cycle.

[astarothel]

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior. certainly true, perhaps I should have let that statement stand. I was just trying to provoke further useful discussion... which apparently I did given the rest of your post.

1) Raid groups will camp right on top of the target's spawn location, allowing it to aggro whomever it will the moment it spawns. These camping groups will presumably be less AFK than they are currently, but the issue still remains that they are camping. An extension of this will be the chaos that ensues, and the raid target's corresponding aggro spam line (it aggro'd on them, but WE picked it up, etc)

Sitting actually on the spawn point is one possible strategy, but ultimately, I think people will back off out of aggro range from the spawn precisely because of the reasons you cite. If guilds A, B, and C all have people sitting on the spawn point, initial random aggro is on a player from guild A totally randomly, then guilds B and C lose out, and possibly lose members to AE dmg or early bouncing aggro before a tank gets secured on it. This means that if Guild A ultimately fails, guilds B and C will be in a worse position to contest for the next shot since they will have had players die with little prospect for a res and rebuff until Guild A wipes or wins. On the other hand, if someone from Guild A has initial aggro and Guild B "picks it up" in the initial melee, then grats Guild B, you just got banned... should have paid more attention to the initial aggro message. Either through pre-meditated reasoning, or trial and error, I think most raid forces will quickly conclude that sitting on the spawn point gives at best a random shot at initial aggro as opposed to a skill based chance (reaction time) for standing off.... UPDATE: I have refined the rule to be more precise about handling this situation.

Redo the wording on the core rule itself to be more clear.
You have 'begin the fight' combined with an engagement based upon aggro.

I assume you mean "the first guild to aggro the target (with message indicator going off) has 15 minutes to do 5% damage to the target, and will subsequently be afforded one opportunity to kill the target". I agree. I'll work on making the language more precise. UPDATE: Done, see main post

What happens if the mob has been aggro'd and kited around for 15 minutes, but the 5% damage has not been done? The raid target will not issue a new aggro message if/when an other raid group (or groups) attempt to engage it. I did not spell this out. The rule doesn't specifically account for this, so I will make sure that is rectified in the re-write. My intention was that the mob is Free For All again, but with no additional aggro messages to determine a priority, it could descend into a KS match. I am considering alternatives. I will update the main post when I have reached a conclusion, or at least a more firm proposal. UPDATE: Done, see main post.

Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab. Forgive my ignorance of this situation, but I am not aware of what happened. I don't really want to rehash it in this thread, either though. However, much like camping, this is not an all or nothing proposition. I never expected my rule to eliminate all camping or all KSing. I think it is foolish to expect that from any proposal. Some of it is going to happen. The question is "would it be reduced to a level acceptable to the devs and the playerbase?"

The second any member, or any group gets a ban they (or their guild) will immediately call foul, questioning the GM decision alleging GM favouritism, or the GM was wrong (fallibility usually asserted through claims of "ignorance or incomplete details regarding the situation").
This is moderated by the similar penalties for false accusations. Under my suggestions, when a petition is made for a KSing or Training violation over a raid target, someone is getting banned, either the petitioner, or the person being petitioned about. Those are high stakes, and they will make people think twice before just crying foul. As a potential petitioner, a player better be sure the logs will back him up and/or consider running fraps.

The system as proposed is frontloaded with the need for GM management and there is nothing in place once GMs have stopped babysitting to stop douchebaggery from commencing again starting a whole new cycle. Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.

This is why I believe FFA/first to engage is inherently no better for GM time and involvement than any ruleset that is or will be instituted.I predict the behavior that results in a petition to the GMs will decrease with my ruleset. You believe it will not. We are assessing something about the situations differently. So be it.

A smaller spawn variance will only increase the camping for that period of time when the spawn window is open. Whether it is active camping or AFK it is irrelevant, camping will increase during those periods.Sure, "will increase for that period of time" is a nice turn of phrase to make it sound like I am supporting an increase of camping, but we've had guilds camping one spawn for 3+ days... 72 hours... that's what I've heard anyway, I sure as hell wasn't parked in one zone for that long. To me, there is no way to slice a 6 to 12 hour window of camping which involves people keeping their eyeballs on the screen and being actively at the controls so that it becomes "more camping" or "less acceptable" to most raiders on this server than rotations of 15+ people from multiple guilds sitting in a zone for 72+ hours. My plan reduces and changes camping from the status quo.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

What would be different about a player enforced SK rotation that would prevent the same behavior from happening?

I concede the point, rotations are going to be talked about. I suppose there is no harm having the discussion here.

[astarothel]

Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.


Frontloaded: the work they will need to do at the onset is significantly more than they should have to do throughout the rest of the duration.

Training and KSing have always been serious offenses under the server rules.

We cannot expect the GMs to be any more vigilant now than they have been in the past over these issues simply because a new ruleset for raiding is instituted that places emphasis upon more severe punishment. The most we could hope for really is that they would levy harsher penalties upon the guilty.

Is the frontloaded weight of the system going to pay off? Do the GMs have the time? That is the concern a number of people have.

==

Here's why Bumamgar's situation of a straight rotation is not necessarily best applied toward a dynamic rotation.

The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time.

6 guilds is a lot in a straight rotation, but in a dynamic rotation like SK where you are responsible for tracking your targets, not so much.

Vellious is a long ways away and a straight rotation with so many targets is messy. Eww.

The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

In a dynamic rotation like SK, the higher end guilds will be prioritizing their kill targets. The reason they would be passing is for a shot at a better target down the line. When a raid target spawns in a dynamic rotation like SK someone will almost always be there to take it, so there is no risk of it not being killed or going to waste.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.
This is the part of what Bum said that I was talking about. While the guilds involved in a SK rotation would be more vigilant for sure, there is no stopping a guild from outside the rotation from crashing the party and taking (or trying to take) mobs, and without GM enforcement of the SK rotation, there is nothing to prevent a guild from staying out of the SK agreement (or a motivated PUG who didn't like the idea of the rotation).

[Taluvill]

As awesome as this idea sounded in the other forum, it just changes camping for 4 days into camping for 12 hours, and instead of safe spots its spawn points and you hope you get first aggro.

No ill will meant, but this shit ain't gonna work boss.

Edit: and I read the whole thread. Rotation will NOT work unless its gm enforced, and Suicide kings is pretty nifty for sure.

[girth]

Even if all it did was to change camping so its not done 3 days ahead of time and force people camping at a spawn point to not be afk(nobody will AFK at boss spawn points), then I would consider this a success.

Nobody would camp a spawn for days if you don't have to be the FIRST raid force in the zone. If its just a race to agro the mob, people will show up when they need to.

That is 50000000000000000000000000000000000x better.

[Combo]

Just instance the damn things, make everything NODROP, and get it over with.

It's 100% unclassic, but it's what every damn moron that makes another thread about raid rules secretly wants.

[girth]

No we don't. We play this 10 year old game because the raiding of non-instanced bosses THAT YOU MUST COMPETE OVER is about the most fun you can have in the endgame of a PvE game.

Instanced zones are not fun. I remember my whole guild bitching and moaning every time we had to do Plane of Time. If it wasn't for the mass quantities of amazing loot, I'd say that's one of my least favorite zones in that expansion. The only reason it was bearable IMO at the time was the sheer amount of raid bosses/loot.

No matter what you say, if you play a PvE game for the high-end, its not about the boss you're killing, its about competing with the next person. If you only have 1 boss between multiple guilds, the competition is who gets the boss. If each guild has their own instanced boss, the competition is who can kill their boss first.

The only difference is the losers get their mob/loot too in instanced zones. That makes winning less fun.

[bullet]

No we don't. We play this 10 year old game because the raiding of non-instanced bosses THAT YOU MUST COMPETE OVER is about the most fun you can have in the endgame of a PvE game.

Instanced zones are not fun.

No matter what you say, if you play a PvE game for the high-end, its not about the boss you're killing, its about competing with the next person.

Yes we can quite clearly see that Everquest raiding is 'fun'

[G13]

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

This is what people who don't raid don't understand. None of this content is designed for a "first 15 to aggro" rule. None of it. What you are seeing is how far people are willing to take shit to kill mobs. What you are seeing is competition within the confines of the current raid rules. The variance is making the camping far worse than it needs to be. It should be removed.

There is no difference between one druid and an additional 14 people camping a mob. So 14+ people camp out at WC instead of in the zone? It takes 2 seconds to port to LS/zone in.

It takes 2 seconds to port to Hate

Fear is the only real FFA zone (kinda). The way CT aggro works it throws FFA out the window.

Perma just requires some potions. Then it takes literally 3 minutes to zone in.

Such a huge difference. But why would a guild want to log out in WC when they can log out in the zone instead? Why log off when you can remain logged in and establish claim? It's not your fault if nobody roll calls you or timers you. Any of the current pick up raids or "raiding guilds" can do this but they don't.

I agree that the camping needs to stop, but this is not going to be an easy solution. There are massive egos preventing any true reform. People are going to want to mold rules that they think favor them the most. It's human nature.

If you truly want "competition" a completely new raid system, independent from any server rules would have to be created. A game within a game. Every raiding guild would have to agree to these rules. The current system of 15 in zone, timers, roll calls, camping, ect. is a game within a game. A very tedious and strategic one, but a game nonetheless. If you want shit to change you need to create a completely new system which would require honesty from all guilds and a willingness for everyone to comply.

Good luck with that!

[girth]

I grow tired of people saying that this system would not change anything. If you take away the 'first 15 in a zone' rule, it won't matter how long a raid has been camping, 3-4 days it doesn't matter, some other raid can show up an hour before a boss' window opens and agro it first.

How is that not a world of difference?

I mean shit guys, the whole reason camping sucks is cause people want to play the damned game, not tab out and do other stuff. Couple hours-half a day(or whatever a lessened variance would be) is fine, 3 days is not. If you cannot see the difference, then you shouldn't even be in the discussion.

[G13]

I grow tired of people saying that this system would not change anything. If you take away the 'first 15 in a zone' rule, it won't matter how long a raid has been camping, 3-4 days it doesn't matter, some other raid can show up an hour before a boss' window opens and agro it first.

How is that not a world of difference?

I mean shit guys, the whole reason camping sucks is cause people want to play the damned game, not tab out and do other stuff. Couple hours-half a day(or whatever a lessened variance would be) is fine, 3 days is not. If you cannot see the difference, then you shouldn't even be in the discussion.

The people camping it would sit on the spawn spamming bard AOE damage songs

Also if you already have 15 in the zone in anticipation for the spawn, you are in a much better position strategically to get first aggro. You don't need to wait for 15 to zone in, or port, or to log in ect. You are there, in force, ready.

This rule wouldn't change anything. FFA would just make camping worse. Not better.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

The people camping it would sit on the spawn spamming bard AOE damage songs

Also if you already have 15 in the zone in anticipation for the spawn, you are in a much better position strategically to get first aggro. You don't need to wait for 15 to zone in, or port, or to log in ect. You are there, in force, ready.

This rule wouldn't change anything. FFA would just make camping worse. Not better.

How different the world must be from your perspective where 6-12 horus of camping is worse than 96 hours of camping!

[astarothel]

How different the world must be from your perspective where 6-12 horus of camping is worse than 96 hours of camping!

6 to 12 hours of active camping with 50+ per group isn't a massive improvement over 15 per group semi-afk camping for a longer period of time. It is the act of camping itself which is the issue.

[Wrei]

This is why I stated previously that in order to cease campers the mobs needs to be put on an even longer variance. Make the bosses pop + or - a month and if that fails (by people going ultra retard), then increase it to + or - 2 months ;) , if they are willing to wait 2months 24/7 then they DESERVE the loot. On a serious note, I'm not sure why we can't try full FFA. Trying it for a couple of weeks won't kill the server...

[girth]

On a serious note, I'm not sure why we can't try full FFA. Trying it for a couple of weeks won't kill the server...

Cause the GM's want it their way even though they do not raid. They want us to come up with some kind of system that doesn't involve them which just is not going to happen. No matter what, there will be people/guilds that cross the line.

[girth]

6 to 12 hours of active camping with 50+ per group isn't a massive improvement over 15 per group semi-afk camping for a longer period of time. It is the act of camping itself which is the issue.

No. No its not. The issue is not being able to play 85% of the time because you have to be the first 15 in a zone to claim a boss.

[astarothel]

No. No its not. The issue is not being able to play 85% of the time because you have to be the first 15 in a zone to claim a boss.

6 Targets* 12 hours variance -- 72 hours. Now assuming that's total hours per week, no windows overlap, thats 60% of a week. That's assuming 24/7. Cut it down to playable hours and it only gets worse.

First 15 relies upon camping. So does this proposal.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

You know, I've seen a number of responses to this thread talking about camping.

A few are reasonable and mention that camping will still take place (something I never denied).

Some are claiming that there will still be camping (ignoring the better/worse amount of camping dimension) and simply declare it to be fail because there will be some amount of camping.

And... a few responses display either a staggering lack of understand of absolute value, greater than/less than, basic arithmatic... an amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance... or a relentless willingness to troll my thread.

That said, after further consideration, I have decided that the only useful purpose of spawn variance was the push the spawns around the clock and balance time zones. So, I have changed the proposal to eliminate it. The proposal now suggests adding exactly 6 hours to the base spawn time of raid mobs so that they will naturally progress around the clock.

[G13]

6 Targets* 12 hours variance -- 72 hours. Now assuming that's total hours per week, no windows overlap, thats 60% of a week. That's assuming 24/7. Cut it down to playable hours and it only gets worse.

First 15 relies upon camping. So does this proposal.

You know I keep reading these threads and it's the same shit over and over.

So I'm just gonna say it

Even FFA would rely upon camping. It won't stop the smart guilds from devising ways to be in the best position possible to get the mobs. That's being there when they spawn. At the ready. Hence "camping"

None of you people get it still. The logical conclusion to all of these different proposals, tactics, from IB starting the camping thing by using druids to camp in shifts so their entire guild didn't have to, all have to come to this point. If you want mobs you have to camp them. Want to stop guilds from doing it? I guess either try to KS them, or call timers, or roll call them. More than one guild going to camp a mob? Have bards in shifts spamming AOE song to catch first aggro, batphone/guild at the ready.

This is why I continue to scratch my head when IB says "FFA will save teh raids!". They were the ones who started the abnormal camping methods in the first place. I really don't understand why they bitch about camping so much now. They sure didn't have a problem with it when their druids were doing it for them and they could be logged off doing other shit. Must have been nice huh guys.

Nobody seems to remember this who is in their guild for some reason. Now that their entire guild has to do what their druids were doing for months, suddenly it's "cheap". Every time Alawen brings his kleenex to a thread I want to scream at the guy "YOU camped mobs for 6 months 12 hours a day. Please STFU"

They were the ones who proposed variance. They were the ones, along with a few other guilds that created the current raiding rules. Now everyone is going apeshit trying to figure out what to do because people are actually willing to camp the boss mobs. You think this is going to get better in Kunark? It's going to get worse. Trakanon anyone? VP keys anyone? We have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

In reality, Everquest is an extremely flawed game. It was a good idea, but other MMos have vastly improved upon the genre. The nostalgia of the old raiding scene is skewed. People handled it differently from server to server. No 2 servers were really alike to be honest. You have 5-6 mobs a week right now. A WEEK. All of them are pushovers. None of the loot except for a select few items are jaw dropping. People pass the time by bitching at each other on the forums. Kunark isn't even going to be out until probably next year anyways. The current raiding guilds will be burned out long before then, so none of these mobs, and none of this shit even matters right now. How is sky going to be handled? FFA? First 15? Seriously?

The end game here has been a dick waving contest since day one. It's been basically IB waving their dick in everyone's face and trying to one up the server until another guild decided to step it up to as far as you can possibly take this. I don't even blame IB for doing it, I just wish they would have handled it better instead of rubbing it in everyone's face with shit eating grins. It created this massive ego stalemate between both guilds now which is a shame.

First nobody but IB could really even kill the bosses. They never had a chance to practice indefinitely without another guild hassling them and calling timers for months like IB did, You have to remember the first two guilds were on a rotation. They could wipe, retry, wipe, retry. Other guilds haven't had that luxury. They had to adapt to survive. It really annoys me when I see these noobs who have never done a damn thing or even TRY to kill a mob come in here and try to dictate new raid rules. Or some scrub recruit from one guild or another try and dictate shit. They don't have a clue.

It takes a lot of effort, organization, morale boosting, leadership, ect. to hold together a raiding guild. I give a lot of credit to the leadership of both DA and IB. They have worked their asses off. Their members have worked their asses off. It's hard fucking work to kill shit on this server. Camping is nothing. Try getting 30 min timer called on you as soon as Vox spawns. Get your raid together, pull the trash, buff, and kill Vox within 30 minutes. One mistake and it's a potential wipe. If none of you can do this for Vox, how are you going to do it for Trakanon.

I haven't seen any of you fuckers organize your guilds and even attempt to call a timer on DA or IB. Divinity maybe once or twice. Remedy? Fuck no. All they do is farm trash in the planes over and over. GC? lol. WI? Whatever. Trans? They made a few half hearted attempts at druid tracking but their guild never gave a fuck even enough to login for a batphone. Poopsocking had nothing to do with it. Am I missing anyone? Dutchmasters? Who

As far as I'm concerned the only people that deserve to create new raiding rules are the 2 guilds that have actually raided. The two guilds that have put in the time, effort, organization, mobilization, tracking, and raiding. IB and DA. The rest of you scrubs can fuck off. You've never done jack shit to earn the right. You never challenged IB. You never even tried. You were too chickenshit or lazy to put any effort into organizing yourselves and getting kills. Not even a druid/batphone setup to call ONE timer or roll call. Not once. Now you want to create new raid rules? No fucking thank you. I don't care for IB's methods, or the trolling by a select few of their members, but I respect the effort they have put into getting their mobs. The rest of you are useless. This server could have had a much better raiding environment if you people had organized even a little bit and contested some mobs. Called some timers. Made shit interesting. But you rolled over like a bunch of pussies and are now whining and bitching on the forums talking shit. Well guess what. IB and DA are getting to experience the Gods and Dragons, grabbing the loot and you guys are holding your dicks.

Yea I said it because I'm sick of this shit. Nothing is going to change. Stop making these threads pretending like shit is going to change, and you know wtf you are talking about. Stop talking and start DOING something in game. I imagine raiding sucks when you've killed your 2549th Shiverback or Loathing Lich and have yet to engage one boss. in 9 months. When DA and IB decide to stop raiding you guys can go plant your fucking tulips, hold hands and dance in a circle, and do your rotation thing or something.

[Skope]

Something like an FFA with first 15 to aggro could work in theory, but you'd have to keep the spawn variance as is to deter the camping. If you decreased spawn variance it would benefit those that have been there for days due to less need for mobilization. It essentially boils down to a race between getting back to your PC or another guild mobilizing a 15+ raid force and getting to the target. My bet is that the campers will probably win out.

Divinity has called timers on guilds and it has been successful. Right now, though, guilds engage targets with 40+, 50+, even bordering on 60 players. The chance to fail on something like naggy, inny, or CT with that many people is damn near null. Depending on the target, it's practically not worth calling timers at all. The only two exceptions I can think of maestro, vox, and perhaps draco. Essentially a single dragon, and even then if the guild has resist gear and the proper tactics it'll be a very slim chance of a wipe.

If the spawn variance were any smaller (say it were 12 hours) it would be advantageous to any guild that sits there for 12 hours. Thus the only deterrent against camping would be leaving the same variance, but even then you're not guaranteed that guilds won't camp, because it does still give them a slight advantage. Also consider that in a rush to engage the target there inevitably be training, jumping, and other foul-smelling business. Thus my issue with FFA is the same as the GMs; it WILL ultimately make their job a living hell.

[Akame]

Something like an FFA with first 15 to aggro could work in theory, but you'd have to keep the spawn variance as is to deter the camping. If you decreased spawn variance it would benefit those that have been there for days due to less need for mobilization. It essentially boils down to a race between getting back to your PC or another guild mobilizing a 15+ raid force and getting to the target. My bet is that the campers will probably win out.

Divinity has called timers on guilds and it has been successful. Right now, though, guilds engage targets with 40+, 50+, even bordering on 60 players. The chance to fail on something like naggy, inny, or CT with that many people is damn near null. Depending on the target, it's practically not worth calling timers at all. The only two exceptions I can think of maestro, vox, and perhaps draco. Essentially a single dragon, and even then if the guild has resist gear and the proper tactics it'll be a very slim chance of a wipe.

Morbid curiosity but why would a bigger spawn variance deter camping, instead of a smaller spawn variance that would shorten the length of potential camping? I don't understand your logic.

[Akame]

Stupid stuff.

You know, I would say your forum handle must be your age after that word vomit of uselessness, but the punctuation in your commentary suggests otherwise so I digress. Dumesh and I have been in and leading raiding guilds that raided 5+ days a week since Kunark. I know he speaks from a place of vast experience in the raiding world of Everquest.

NOTHING about this server or this content is new, hard, or intriguing; so acting like your guild is the first and best at what it does with 10+ year old content is a good way for you to look like a fool on this forum and little else.

So why don't you either go to the RnF forums and continue your tirade, or reread the first post and begin offering constructive criticism or commentary that will help bring an end to all these threads and come up with a functioning proper set of raid rules that will be sustainable through all the content that this server is going to release.

[Skope]

Morbid curiosity but why would a bigger spawn variance deter camping, instead of a smaller spawn variance that would shorten the length of potential camping? I don't understand your logic.

Because camping for 12+1 hours is a lot less than 4 days, and in turn a lot easier to camp thus would make people far more willing to do so. There are already 15+ people in zones now, with a smaller variance that 15+ number will exponentially increase because 12 hours doesn't look so bad anymore. The 48+/- hours that we have now is at least keeping the numbers to a minimum. Having it 12 hours (or whatever # you want less than 48) will introduce 2-3 more guilds camping in the same zones as IB/DA.

[Akame]

Because camping for 12+1 hours is a lot less than 4 days, and in turn a lot easier to camp thus would make people far more willing to do so. There are already 15+ people in zones now, with a smaller variance that 15+ number will exponentially increase because 12 hours doesn't look so bad anymore. The 48+/- number now is at least keeping the numbers to a minimum.

Ahh ok now I think I got you. So you're saying 15 people camping over several days is better than an entire raid force of 40+ camping for 6-12 hours?

The collective sum of hours camped is what you mean :)

[Skope]

Ahh ok now I think I got you. So you're saying 15 people camping over several days is better than an entire raid force of 40+ camping for 6-12 hours?

The collective sum of hours camped is what you mean :)

Just imagine if 3 guilds were in the same zone camping Innoruuk at that 12 hour variance. Keep in mind the rules are FFA until first to engage.

Now, for anyone who agrees with these rules, would you be able to truthfully tell me that you actually think it's a good idea?

I can guarantee you this theoretical situation would happen and it would happen quite frequently. With such a shortage of raid targets and a decreased spawn variance, guilds will simply put 20 on each target that's in window and wait it out. But with a lower spawn variance, guilds will be less likely to hesitate and follow what IB/DA have been doing recently.

[astarothel]

Shit.

Would having an IB or DA tag above my head make you take me any more seriously? No, not really.

Either tag above my head would just result in the other side flinging shit for that. You'd accuse me of being an IB lapdog for preferring druid tracking, and then now you shit on me lumping me in with guilds that don't put forth an effort to call timers or put in time.

Make up your fucking mind.

I put forth a raid proposal that you came out and said you thought could work (Suicide Kings), and then here you are pissing all over me when I was disproving FFA's claim shortened raid target windows would free up 85% of the time from camping.

Make up your fucking mind.

You cry about what IB did for months when druid tracking was always done on live. Why? Because if your guild didn't do it, you'd never know when a target was up. Abnormal camping methods are a tracking druid? Claim camping is inevitable, then say that there is no difference between one person tracking and dropping fifteen campers in a zone. There's about 14 people difference last I checked.

You are out of your fucking mind.

Keep thinking IB is terrible and solely responsible for the raiding situation and that DA's shit doesn't stink. If you exclude every guild except IB and DA, that makes DA 50% of the problem.

It really annoys me when I see these noobs who have never done a damn thing or even TRY to kill a mob come in here and try to dictate new raid rules. Or some scrub recruit from one guild or another try and dictate shit. They don't have a clue.

A clue is not required to see that the current state of raiding is absurd.
A guild could have competed with IB when it comes to mobilization if they got their shit together. Some in DA even admitted that they couldn't compete mobilization-wise with IB in another thread. The evolution of raiding DA chose, camping, killed competition more than a single tracking druid ever did or could have.

Sitting 15+ people in a zone (or more if raid people target windows are shortened) and waiting to see which group's bards dissonance magically aggros a spawning mob first doesn't take any sort of skill, or any sort of finesse. It's not even competition, it's just whichever bard takes it to the face first.

I play to compete. I will join a raiding guild that makes an impact when I feel that reasonable competition is possible. Right now it's a fucking sausagefest at the safespot, and as I stated earlier DA is 50% of the problem -- stop trying to make it seem like this is all IB's fault.

[Akame]

Just imagine if 3 guilds were in the same zone camping Innoruuk at that 12 hour variance. Keep in mind the rules are FFA until first to engage.

Now, for anyone who agrees with these rules, would you be able to truthfully tell me that you actually think it's a good idea?

I can guarantee you this theoretical situation would happen and it would happen quite frequently. With such a shortage of raid targets and a decreased spawn variance, guilds will simply put 20 on each target that's in window and wait it out. But with a lower spawn variance, guilds will be less likely to hesitate and follow what IB/DA have been doing recently.

True, but at least then it's a team effort and people would be ready to go. Also Dumesh suggested earlier to do away with the variance and just add +6 to the timer to allow for euro rotation on the mob.

The idea is to create a system that will work now and forever, all the way through Velious and whatever content that the powers that be decide to add after that. In my view I think that does away with any rotation system of any kind, because it will be impossible to keep a list like that going come Kunark and epic mobs, and I don't want to be back here at the drawing board in six months.

This system creates competition, allows for mob variance for euro and Aussie raiding, and an auto form of self policing since violating the policy invokes play nice regulations that are already in place. Will a mob ever be KS'd? Of course, because competition will be tight at first, and people are jerks. BUT, with properly enforced play nice rules that should minimize itself very quickly

[Starklen]

This is why I continue to scratch my head when IB says "FFA will save teh raids!". They were the ones who started the abnormal camping methods in the first place. I really don't understand why they bitch about camping so much now. They sure didn't have a problem with it when their druids were doing it for them and they could be logged off doing other shit. Must have been nice huh guys.

Nobody seems to remember this who is in their guild for some reason. Now that their entire guild has to do what their druids were doing for months, suddenly it's "cheap". Every time Alawen brings his kleenex to a thread I want to scream at the guy "YOU camped mobs for 6 months 12 hours a day. Please STFU"


A handful of druids rotating in/out tracking mobs is comparable to an entire raid force camping a mob. Keep scratching that head.

[Skope]

If you've had instances of GM intervention with the rules we have now, how in the world do you think these will fair? Thinking it will smooth itself out in the long run is wishful thinking.

I'm all for a system that allows and creates competition. My problem is that this system does nothing to do away with camping, and promotes competition in the wrong way. It opens HUGE doors for controversy and a serious, very ugly raid scene that will unravel due to this FFA format. If it's gotten this ugly with people not even playing their characters for 4 days at a time, just picture 100+ people in a single zone, a dead dragon, 30+ petitions and GMs trying to sort out what the hell just happened. There is absolutely no way this resolution helps and improves on the current scenario. It's a BIG BIG step in the wrong direction!

[Akame]

If you've had instances of GM intervention with the rules we have now, how in the world do you think these will fair? Thinking it will smooth itself out in the long run is wishful thinking.

I'm all for a system that allows and creates competition. My problem is that this system does nothing to do away with camping, and promotes competition in the wrong way. It opens HUGE doors for controversy and a serious, very ugly raid scene that will unravel due to this FFA format. If it's gotten this ugly with people not even playing their characters for 4 days at a time, just picture 100+ people in a single zone, a dead dragon, 30+ petitions and GMs trying to sort out what the hell just happened. There is absolutely no way this resolution helps and improves on the current scenario. It's a BIG BIG step in the wrong direction!

You see now the main problem that spawned this would be allowing that kind of behavior to stand at all. I am perfectly ok with KSer's and false reports and the like being a several weeks suspension offense, but that spawns from the fact that I know that I know how to raid in this game without doing either.

[Skope]

The GM's don't want to intervene. The reason we have rules in the first place is to prevent the GM's from coming in to intervene. If we were to play by these rules you might as well issue a permanent GM to every zone that's got a target people will look to lay claim to.

Suicide Kings was a better idea. It needed refining, but at least it promotes competition, tracking, and can actually do away with camping in a manner that avoids mass controversy and promotes a healthy raiding atmosphere.

[Akame]

The GM's don't want to intervene. The reason we have rules in the first place is to prevent the GM's from coming in to intervene. If we were to play by these rules you might as well issue a permanent GM to every zone that's got a target people will look to lay claim to.

Suicide Kings was a better idea. It needed refining, but at least it promotes competition, tracking, and can actually do away with camping in a manner that avoids mass controversy and promotes a healthy raiding atmosphere.

But without GM enforcement there are no punishments that will actually give the population enough of an aversion to not following the rules to actually stick to it. At least picking GM enforcement that is already in the original play nice rule set means we aren't creating any type of punishments that didn't exist in classic EQ.

[Skope]

But without GM enforcement there are no punishments that will actually give the population enough of an aversion to not following the rules to actually stick to it. At least picking GM enforcement that is already in the original play nice rule set means we aren't creating any type of punishments that didn't exist in classic EQ.

What don't you get? the GM's don't want to intervene! they don't want to babysit! And they've said it numerous times before! The reason we even have rules is so they don't have to sift through countless petitions. They're busy with programming, handling bugs and trying to catch cheats. The last thing they would want is to babysit us raiders in a zone. The current 'play nice' rules would do what exactly? They're a deterrent, but when you have to watch fraps, sift through countless of screenshots and still don't have enough proof to pinpoint a responsible party then all the parties involved are essentially screwed.

[G13]

Would having an IB or DA tag above my head make you take me any more seriously? No, not really.

Either tag above my head would just result in the other side flinging shit for that. You'd accuse me of being an IB lapdog for preferring druid tracking, and then now you shit on me lumping me in with guilds that don't put forth an effort to call timers or put in time.

I never accused you of anything genius. I wasn't even talking directly to you in my post. Your quote was just another example of the stupidity that is this thread, and other threads just like it. I was actually agreeing with you. These people are bickering over semantics that all lead to the same conclusion. Camping.

I put forth a raid proposal that you came out and said you thought could work (Suicide Kings), and then here you are pissing all over me when I was disproving FFA's claim shortened raid target windows would free up 85% of the time from camping.

I never said SK could work. You still don't get it and you never will. No proposal is ever going to work. Get that through your head. Here, let me make it simple.

FFA = camping cluserfuck. KS clusterfuck. Training clusterfuck

Current Rules = Camping clusterfuck

This first 15 to aggro = completely exploitable. Competing guilds camping the spawn point with bard AOE. Rogean called to every boss fight to determine "who got first aggro". Yea sounds like a fun.

This COULD be an interesting raid scene if the other guilds would actually DO something instead of farming froggy crowns and planar trash for once. It's like nobody has read the rules or wants to devise ways to compete in the current system. You all act like you have to camp or something to get mobs. You don't. You just have to be there when they spawn. You can call timers. You can roll call. No camping is needed. Nobody does it though. They don't even try. They don't check on other guild's positions and try to take advantage of a situation when they make a mistake. They don't roll call. They don't call timers. Apply pressure. Nothing.

None of you jackasses truly understand what Nilbog has been saying. Make up your own raiding system that is manageable. I.E one that doesn't involve Nilbog. FFA would involve Nilbog every time a mob spawned. The current system for the most part leave the GMs out of it apparently. Nobody wants to think outside the box though. You all want to create a raiding system that is hindered by the glaring flaws of the game. That is never going to work. Go ahead and speak of the good ole days. it doesn't change the fact that EQ end game is pathetic and broken beyond repair. As MMO players, we've far outgrown this type of game with such limited content. It's painfully obvious.

It could be fixed, but it would take radical ideas that every guild would have to agree on for the overall health of the server. We could create a system that is competitive, fun, and challenging. Won't happen though. Want to know why? Because people in IB and DA just want to kill mobs and get their loot. They don't care how. How doesn't matter. All that matters is they get their kills. I'm not saying anything positive or negative in relation to that. It is just the simple truth. That's why I said before the only way shit is going to change is if DA and IB create new raid rules. Because it's FACT.

You cry about what IB did for months when druid tracking was always done on live. Why? Because if your guild didn't do it, you'd never know when a target was up. Abnormal camping methods are a tracking druid? Claim camping is inevitable, then say that there is no difference between one person tracking and dropping fifteen campers in a zone. There's about 14 people difference last I checked.

14 people is nothing. You are acting like this is a major feat for 2 groups to log out in WC and get ported or something. Seriously, you people need to stop with this shit. It is not some insane mobilization skill to use a potion of the frost or log out at a spire/ring. End that charade please. You are not some super skilled mobilization guild because you port people from a druid ring in WC.

I don't remember crying about IB doing anything anyways. I stated the facts. Not every server had a rotating druid with batphone either. Sure there were some trackers, but we didn't have mass txt messaging like we do today. It wasn't the norm. It was more like, go check the spawn, if you could even get in the zone. You couldn't just zone into Fear and see if Cazic was up. I don't think you realize it, but back in the day you couldn't actually track Innoruuk from the zone line either. You didn't know that did you. SOE wasn't stupid.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/zones.html?zstrat=68

This guy remembers it like I do.

I know that in the past I could not track Inny from zone in. If I remember oorrectly, Inny was only trackable from the tier 2 area

Which is absolutely correct. Don't want people camping Inny? Don't allow him to be tracked from zone in.

I actually think removing tracking in Hate would make it interesting. Sure you could probably stick a rogue there, but put banshees up there all the way so they can't sneak over there. There are a lot of things that could be done to shake things up. Make them interesting, but I doubt it will ever happen. If all these guilds supposedly want "competition" I would imagine they would be completely for these types of ideas. But like I said before, you guys just want your mobs. You just troll up the forums whining about 15 people camping instead of 1 to try and feel better about yourselves. We both know the only thing that mattes is who killed what.

Keep thinking IB is terrible and solely responsible for the raiding situation and that DA's shit doesn't stink. If you exclude every guild except IB and DA, that makes DA 50% of the problem.

I don't think IB is terrible. You're being defensive because you know there is truth in what I say. On the contrary, DA and IB are the only two guilds doing anything on this server worthwhile. The rest of them are useless.

A clue is not required to see that the current state of raiding is absurd.
A guild could have competed with IB when it comes to mobilization if they got their shit together. Some in DA even admitted that they couldn't compete mobilization-wise with IB in another thread. The evolution of raiding DA chose, camping, killed competition more than a single tracking druid ever did or could have.

DA has beaten IB mobilization wise many times. Stop pretending like this isn't true. When IB wiped themselves in Hate, DA was there in force within 5 minutes. IB didn't bow out with dignity either. They cried to the GMs to hand them the zone. The people who wiped them. Vittra, Starklen, Gwence, and a handful of others lied to their officers and then they lied to the GMs to save their sorry asses. In Sol B you got beat by mobilization. In Fear you got beat after you wiped yourselves last week. Then your members proceeded to bug CT to crash the zone. Cyrius had to come in and kill both mobs. DA had claim and their pick of the mob, but nope, IB had to crash the zone.

I wonder why. Wouldn't have anything to do with resetting his loot tables right?

Like I said many times. Any smart guild leader knows that it's better to have 15 in the zone and a guaranteed claim that 1 druid. You can whine about it all you want, but if the lone druid method was better than what we currently have, IB would still be doing it wouldn't they.

Sitting 15+ people in a zone (or more if raid people target windows are shortened) and waiting to see which group's bards dissonance magically aggros a spawning mob first doesn't take any sort of skill, or any sort of finesse. It's not even competition, it's just whichever bard takes it to the face first.

Nothing in this game takes any sort of skill. Get that through your thick head. That's the entire point.

I play to compete. I will join a raiding guild that makes an impact when I feel that reasonable competition is possible. Right now it's a fucking sausagefest at the safespot, and as I stated earlier DA is 50% of the problem -- stop trying to make it seem like this is all IB's fault.

Yea this sounds really heroic. You play to compete or something. There are a lot of people that have been "competing" here a lot longer than you have. IB and DA are not the problem. They are devising strategies and tactics based upon the current raid rules. Scoreboard is all that counts. DA never even wrote these rules or had a hand in creating them. Like it or not, it's a strategic game. Too bad EQ is such a broken game that any scenario, or raid rule will be nothing more than an unspoken rotation at the end of the day.

Dumesh and I have been in and leading raiding guilds that raided 5+ days a week since Kunark. .

Nobody gives a fuck what Akame and Dumesh did 10 years ago. Every mfker here has been in a top end raiding guild. The best of the best. You have people from DROW, FOH, Triton, ect. in both DA and IB. You haven't done jack shit here anyways so your opinion is worthless. Do me a favor. Compete with the current guilds. Lead a raid force and rattle the cage a little bit. Use some strategy and tactics. Clear all the trash and engage Vox within 30 minutes and win with 2 guilds breathing down your neck. Kill the drakes on tier 2 in Hate and engage Innoruuk in 20 minutes. Do a WW break in Fear and then clear, buff, pull, and kill Draco in 30 minutes. Then you can come back here and pretend like you know wtf you are talking about.

[Akame]

What don't you get? the GM's don't want to intervene! they don't want to babysit! And they've said it numerous times before! The reason we even have rules is so they don't have to sift through countless petitions. They're busy with programming, handling bugs and trying to catch cheats. The last thing they would want is to babysit us raiders in a zone. The current 'play nice' rules would do what exactly? They're a deterrent, but when you have to watch fraps, sift through countless of screenshots and still don't have enough proof to pinpoint a responsible party then all the parties involved are essentially screwed.

All parties are essentially screwed either way then, there is not enough populace interaction on these boards to merit the community blacklisting that was effective in the old world, and without GM's that are willing to enforce rules, then you might as well just keep the current plan and camp your mobs for four days, since near as I can tell there is actual (imagine that) GM enforced repercussions.


More senseless crap.

You're funny, you must be a stand up comedian in real life. That or you're completely ignorant of the way the world works. I'm betting the second. You still don't get it do you. Everyone on this board only represents a minority of the population of the server. You can shout here all day about how your opinion matters more than others because of what you've done on the server and No. One. Cares.

The truth is that only a handful of the players who post (who are already only a handful of the players who play) even pay attention to the raiding populace threads and topics. And none of that handful is agreeing with you, and I'm guessing that the others that don't pay attention to the thread, and the larger collective that doesn't even care for our existence would not agree with your assumptions that you know whats best for them solely on the fact that you play more than they do and are in a raiding guild.

So sit down, shut up, and help US, come up with a solid system that is best for everyone. Because if you don't, there will be no focus in this minority and without focus and a goal, nothing is going to get done and you will still be camping 15+ in a zone for four days straight by the time Velious rolls around.

[astarothel]

You couldn't just zone into Fear and see if Cazic was up. I don't think you realize it, but back in the day you couldn't actually track Innoruuk from the zone line either. You didn't know that did you. SOE wasn't stupid.


When guilds are clearing trash regularly (which currently happens here, and happened all the time back on live too) you don't exactly need to hug the zl to track do you? Trash respawns? Mulch it down with a group and go back to tracking. Or did you maybe forget that is how it was done? Triggered trash respawn? Don't even need to track to know the target's up.

Keep splooging everywhere, you'll be sure to hit something. Eventually.

[Aadill]

When guilds are clearing trash regularly (which currently happens here, and happened all the time back on live too) you don't exactly need to hug the zl to track do you? Trash respawns? Mulch it down with a group and go back to tracking. Or did you maybe forget that is how it was done? Triggered trash respawn? Don't even need to track to know the target's up.

Keep splooging everywhere, you'll be sure to hit something. Eventually.

I don't know about other guilds but I know that we regularly clear the zone to gear up members and have fun for a few hours between camping sessions. Then we just chill till the next respawn. Kinda how it works already \o/

[astarothel]

I don't know about other guilds but I know that we regularly clear the zone to gear up members and have fun for a few hours between camping sessions. Then we just chill till the next respawn. Kinda how it works already \o/

Precisely my point. Trash is down, trackers will do what they do.

[Aadill]

Precisely my point. Trash is down, trackers will do what they do.

That sorta makes any anti-camping raid rulesets moot, though, as you'd have to keep zones clear and would be sitting in them anyway.

Honestly I feel this is the first time that this has really been touched upon. SolB and Permafrost are fairly safe in comparison to a properly tuned PoHate and PoFear. Camping will happen there because it can. Due to the nature of the mobs in the planes, killing to some extent is necessary, lest your information gathering suffers greatly from literally not being able to survive long enough to check track more than once (alternative methods of rogues/monks aside).

As it stands, camping mobs is dragged out and perhaps boring but is easily mitigated by camping things like Efreeti, killing trash mobs for armor loot, or surviving horrendous lag. The majority of the drama comes from things like suspicious zone crashes, trains with no name, crowding, and the seemingly unfairness of raid targets being shared. The only things being "fixed" by another raid set is the seemingly unfair part.

Anyone can lay claim to a mob if they devote the time to camp it and/or capitalize on mistakes of others. That's why the current system works. I do not believe this particular system presented here will work because relations will become even more heated. I would expect the raid zones to be more bare than they already are... at least multiple guilds are starting to come in and clear zones for loot that other guilds no longer need. Camping would still have to exist in this system, and any level of devotion to being a raid force is more based on a /random moreso than it is now, as it would be based just on sheer luck in aggroing first. Expect a lot of people to get mad.

[astarothel]

Trash is currently set to 8 hours here? Still plenty of time to carry on playing as normal. There's plenty of groups willing to do trash for trash drops sake. This makes a tracker's life a lot easier.

[Aadill]

The idea, however, is for a guild to follow a path of convenience. I wouldn't want to port in and out of hate, which costs money, or do breakins to fear every 8 hours.... kinda nice to sit and chill and kill mobs as they pop, or take down certain areas for loot that I still need or clear paths to the raid mobs for when they pop. It removes the challenge of screwing up.

Beyond the fact that 15 people need to remain logged in, everyone else is still free to roam around. The biggest problem with the current ruleset seems to be the number of people that are "incapacitated" from some level of "normal" gameplay. I can understand that as it's been a universal reason for outcry.

Personally, I have very little wish to start an alt in the classic EQ environment. There are only a few camps that are pretty much always taken, and I've done the quests I want to do. I love killing in the planes and because of that don't mind sitting around. There's been mention of "YOU'RE KILLING ALL THE FUN OF THIS GAME." I was unaware of a precise definition of "fun" that fits all players of the P99 EQ server.

[Akame]

I was unaware of a precise definition of "fun" that fits all players of the P99 EQ server.

To quote my last guild leader. "To kill mobs and take their shit."

Pretty apt definition if you ask me. ;)

[astarothel]

Yeah, I understand the reasons for staying in the planes just fine. It's the sort of thing that you can zip through as it respawns, etc. With a simple timer, the trash is the sort of thing that can get passed off easy to another group that just wants to clear junk.

As long as trash keeps getting cleaned, trackers are in no way useless like G13 claimed they were.

[girth]

6 Targets* 12 hours variance -- 72 hours. Now assuming that's total hours per week, no windows overlap, thats 60% of a week. That's assuming 24/7. Cut it down to playable hours and it only gets worse.

First 15 relies upon camping. So does this proposal.

Your math, I guess you would call it, is flawed in assuming that the bosses don't share windows. By your same math, wouldn't the current situation of like 90+ hours variance mean we camp more than 100% of the week?

How can you possibly think that guilds would still camp a mob for 4 days when it doesn't give them any benefit over showing up 1 hour before the window? (Assuming windows are made smaller if this were to go through. Or changed to +6 always.)

I'd rather show up for a couple hours and have bards duke it out than wait 3-4 days somewhere only to have the zone intentionally crashed as you near a boss pull and the boss mobs despawned as punishment cause they don't know who did it.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

You haven't done jack shit here anyways so your opinion is worthless. Do me a favor. Compete with the current guilds. Lead a raid force and rattle the cage a little bit. Use some strategy and tactics. Clear all the trash and engage Vox within 30 minutes and win with 2 guilds breathing down your neck. Kill the drakes on tier 2 in Hate and engage Innoruuk in 20 minutes. Do a WW break in Fear and then clear, buff, pull, and kill Draco in 30 minutes. Then you can come back here and pretend like you know wtf you are talking about.

I have no expectations that my resume on P99 will do anything to slow down your drivel. However, since some are starting to make assumptions about my record or knowledge here on P99, I will state some facts.

I am a member of Divinity.

I am not an officer of Divinity.

Some members of Divinity like my proposal.

Some members of Divinity don't like my proposal.

Some members of Divinity prefer a rotation.

I do NOT speak for Divinity in any way. I am expressing my own reasoning, thoughts, and opinions.

On P99, I have been an active raider for a combined 7 weeks or so. Most of that was before the current status quo but after the first with 15 in the zone rules were hashed out.

In that time, I have participated in 2 Nagafen kills, 2 Maestro kills, 2 Phinny kills, and hours of planar clearing as practice. I have also been a part of failed races for Vox. I have 10 pieces of Umbral armor, and I have tanked Maestro, Naggy, and Phinny for most of 3 of those 6 kills.

Those numbers don't make me better than anyone else, but they do mean that I have a dog in the fight, and that I have as much right and qualification as anyone to make posts and arguments on this subject. Also, IB and DA are not the only guilds on this server with former members of FoH, Afterlife, LoS, Triton, etc... so you can drop that shit too.

On a more positive note, I'm happy to see the traffic in this thread is staying high. I will have more responses to points made later, but I have to head out for the night.

[astarothel]

Your math, I guess you would call it, is flawed in assuming that the bosses don't share windows.

Gonna guess you missed the part where that was explicitly mentioned.
Oh wait, let me find that for you since you apparently DID miss it the first time.

Now assuming that's total hours per week, no windows overlap, thats 60% of a week.

[Starklen]

Vittra, Starklen, Gwence, and a handful of others lied to their officers and then they lied to the GMs to save their sorry asses.


You agroed clerics that cast AOEs and placed them right on top of me which resulted in my death. Are you seriously still in denial about that?

[G13]

Precisely my point. Trash is down, trackers will do what they do.

SOE had a solution for this too. Guilds still have to work to re clear stuff at least. Be active, ect.

If Fear was clear and CT spawned, the entire zone would instantly repopulate.

Wouldn't that make it interesting. Wouldn't that keep people on their toes. Like I said, you guys claim you want competition, yet you still want to rely on things that cut out the competition and make it a camping game. Easy tracking of raid mobs, especially in the planes, make this a camping game. People just hanging out waiting for the spawns. No real danger involved.

Roaming mobs at the entrance to hateplane would be awesome

Fear completely respawning when CT spawned, regardless how many mobs were up or down. Instant Fear re pop. Put some danger back in the planes instead of the picnic it currently is.

There are many ideas out there to shake things up. Personally if you guys really want a "race to the mob" game it could be done, but it would require a radical raid ruleset that would require an honor system on each guild's part to follow it. Won't happen though.

[G13]

You agroed clerics that cast AOEs and placed them right on top of me which resulted in my death. Are you seriously still in denial about that?

You're freaking retarded.

And a horrible fucking liar.

I watched you idiots wipe your guild. Stop being such a pussy. Be a man and admit your fucking mistakes. Don't lie like a little punk and try to pass shit off on other people. You, Vittra, Gwence, and a few others pulled shit. Someone got feared. Chain aggro from bard song. More mobs INC = dead IB. Learn the game mechanics.

Don't make me bust out the SS where your officers admit Vittra was pulling and somehow somebody "planted" mobs on the East wall to try and justify you nooblets wiping out your entire guild. I find it embarrassing that you would lie to your officers and a GM like that to cover your ass.

[astarothel]

SOE had a solution for this too. Guilds still have to work to re clear stuff at least. Be active, ect.

Full respawns on Fear with CT like in classic? Yeah, it'd suck to break, but after he's dead it'd just be time to deploy the trackers again. I doubt you'd see much change, other than a break and the extra trash clearing.

[girth]

Gonna guess you missed the part where that was explicitly mentioned.
Oh wait, let me find that for you since you apparently DID miss it the first time.

So just because you let us know that your post is bullshit means that we shouldn't consider it bullshit?

Just saying, your math is stupid and means nothing. Absolutely nothing. The fact that you actually used it as anything but a joke is laughable.

[guineapig]

Nobody gives a fuck what Akame and Dumesh did 10 years ago. Every mfker here has been in a top end raiding guild. The best of the best. You have people from DROW, FOH, Triton, ect. in both DA and IB. You haven't done jack shit here anyways so your opinion is worthless. Do me a favor. Compete with the current guilds. Lead a raid force and rattle the cage a little bit. Use some strategy and tactics. Clear all the trash and engage Vox within 30 minutes and win with 2 guilds breathing down your neck. Kill the drakes on tier 2 in Hate and engage Innoruuk in 20 minutes. Do a WW break in Fear and then clear, buff, pull, and kill Draco in 30 minutes. Then you can come back here and pretend like you know wtf you are talking about.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about dude.

Besides not having a shot at Inny yet, we have done everything on your list. Most of it before your guild even existed. You're not special, you're not leet.

I wonder if you're even an original member of your guild. If not then you are just riding on the coattails of what the people that came before you accomplished.

The accomplishment or recruiting all the people that are the most obsessed with the game into a single guild really doesn't say much of anything other than that. The content here isn't difficult, anyone who tells you otherwise is doing something wrong. It all comes down to how much time you want to spend on one thing versus another.

I don't care what you do man, but when you start bashing other guilds with some misguided sense of superiority I'm going to call you out on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to get off topic.

In any case this is the OP's idea and has nothing to do with what others in the guild want to see happen on the server. I for one see much merit in his ideas but then I again, I'm not an officer either. Stay on topic or GTFO.

I would like to hear more about the full repop of Fear and Hate. I'm pretty sure Fear used to repop in full when CT spawned on live but I don't know what era this was happening in. Was it Classic or post revamp?

Also, I don't remember Hate being too easy to zone into either on Live but that came after some changes. Was the zone in always a spot that you could just chill at for days on end without aggroing anything?

[astarothel]

The fact that you actually used it as anything but a joke is laughable.

When mentioned, the new proposed variance would have been +/- 6 hours, rather than the flat +6 as was later amended.

In total that is 12 hours of variance per week, per target.

Since you got your panties in a bunch over the overlap, lets give it a base value of 1.42 with 168 hours in a week vs 72 hours of potential variance.

Variance included it clocks in at 41.76 hours. That's a smidge under 25% of the total hours in the week. If you assume that the current state of camping is 100% of the time due with the pre-existing variances, thats still 75%.
But wait, you stated the person's playing time, not the total hours in a week, so the actual value I've given of 168 hours is too high. This means that the actual percentage is going to be 75% time camped at best. Less than 25% of the time you'll be able to 'play' your character...

What was your line again?
The issue is not being able to play 85% of the time because you have to be the first 15 in a zone to claim a boss.

Weren't you the one giving _me_ shit for pulling numbers out of the air?

Your claim on current situation: 85% of time not able to play.
Proposed situation with +/- 6 hours: >75% of time not able to play.

Less than 10%. Oh god, I am so glad I can play my character so much more than before!!!

[girth]

Asta, when you do your bs math you actually think its scientific and is productive to the conversation.

I pulled a number out of my ass which is probably less than reality(probably spend more than 85% of my in game time camping bosses), and I'm not trying to claim my math proves or disproves anything. If you actually think this proposal would only give us 10% more play time away from camping bosses, may God help you.

[girth]

I got some 'math' for you as well.

+/- 48
+/- 6

See the difference? Apparently not.

Even with the current system, anything over +/- 12 hours is kinda stupid.

[Starklen]

You're freaking retarded.

And a horrible fucking liar.

I watched you idiots wipe your guild. Stop being such a pussy. Be a man and admit your fucking mistakes. Don't lie like a little punk and try to pass shit off on other people. You, Vittra, Gwence, and a few others pulled shit. Someone got feared. Chain aggro from bard song. More mobs INC = dead IB. Learn the game mechanics.

Don't make me bust out the SS where your officers admit Vittra was pulling and somehow somebody "planted" mobs on the East wall to try and justify you nooblets wiping out your entire guild. I find it embarrassing that you would lie to your officers and a GM like that to cover your ass.

Please watch your trains so you don't kill people who are FD. Thanks.

[astarothel]

I got some 'math' for you as well.

+/- 48
+/- 6

See the difference? Apparently not.


Fun fact. You can't camp for more than 100% of the time you play.

See how +/- 48 hours would exceed 100% and therefore be impossible? Apparently not.

The only reason math was ever brought into this was the number you admit you pulled out of your ass.

Remind me again of how anything you "pull out of your ass" is productive to the conversation?

[girth]

Fun fact. You can't camp for more than 100% of the time you play.

See how +/- 48 hours would exceed 100% and therefore be impossible? Apparently not.


By your same math, wouldn't the current situation of like 90+ hours variance mean we camp more than 100% of the week?

Pretty sure I understand that and that's why I called out your terrible mathematical debunking of OP's solution.

Remind me again of how anything you "pull out of your ass" is productive to the conversation?

You could always just learn to read and go back and try to understand the main point of my post that got you started on math. You think the act of camping itself is the problem, even though the only other way to do it basically is a rotation, which is way worse.

Like I said on that post that you ignored and went on a tirade about math making this a bad proposal, the problem is the amount of camping needed currently, +/- 48 or whatever it is at the moment is beyond stupid. Obviously you should realize at this point you cannot deter the camping guilds from going the extra mile to get their raid bosses, so to think that making the spawn variance longer will do so is just well...stupid.

Even if you don't accept this proposal, shorten the variance which was put in because of time zone differences unless I'm mistaken, even though +/- 12 would just as easily do the same thing. So would +/- 6.

I'm not sure you are in the raiding scene atm Asta, and I just got into it myself, but I can tell you that camping most likely will not change due to supply and demand. What needs to change is the amount of camping that the absurd spawn variances force us to do. Lower spawn variances and removal of the first to 15 in a zone will help tremendously to alleviate this. Those 2 reasons and the no rotation thing is why this is the best proposal.

[astarothel]

By your same math, wouldn't the current situation of like 90+ hours variance mean we camp more than 100% of the week?

The math presupposes that you have a maximum of 168 hours available in the week. Why? Because unless you have a wonderful way to dilate time that's how it works. Any value beyond the 100% is irrelevant because it doesn't exist. Any comparison then will have to be drawn to this 100% value, rather than your amazing week with time dilation.

You think the act of camping itself is the problem, even though the only other way to do it basically is a rotation, which is way worse.


Subjective argument, although people including myself would agree that a simple straight rotation as a solution is probably not desirable.

Obviously you should realize at this point you cannot deter the camping guilds from going the extra mile to get their raid bosses, so to think that making the spawn variance longer will do so is just well...stupid.

Please find exactly where I said making the spawn variance longer would fix anything. Note: It's going to be tough because I never said it anywhere.

Even if you don't accept this proposal, shorten the variance which was put in because of time zone differences unless I'm mistaken, even though +/- 12 would just as easily do the same thing. So would +/- 6.

Nowhere did I state that I was against lowering the variance, simply that doing so would not put an end to camping, rather it would change the nature of camping. (15 people constantly camping with some afks in there vs entire raid groups at the shorter +/- variance window that will also have those same afks)

camping most likely will not change due to supply and demand.

The only way to end camping is to have it offer no absolute advantage when it comes to the determination of who gets the target. Since this would require either a straight rotation or a dynamic rotation like SK, and the raiding populace seems intent on curbstomping any sort of solution or compromise I think it's fair to say it will never end.


What needs to change is the amount of camping that the absurd spawn variances force us to do. Lower spawn variances

Opinions on switching to a flat +variance rather than a +/-?
What this means is I think a +0 to 12 would be better than a +/-6.
This would ensure it still moves around the clock to accommodate all time zones, where shorter +/- variance might not be as dynamic.

I definitely would like to see CT repop fear. I think that'd cut back some on PoF camping while making breaks more frequent.

The pathing trash in PoH isn't really an issue to either campers or a tracker since a trash clear will remedy it and then you just have to watch the clock and make sure people are there to clear respawns. I can't remember if Inno repops Hate or not (leaning towards him not), or if this would even be a reasonable solution to implement even if he didn't.

Those 2 reasons and the no rotation thing is why I think this is the best proposal.

Fixed to represent subjectivity.

Interested in hearing peoples' comments on possible planes changes and flat +var.

[girth]

Fair enough. I like your last post Asta.

Obviously you should realize at this point you cannot deter the camping guilds from going the extra mile to get their raid bosses, so to think that making the spawn variance longer will do so is just well...stupid.
Yeah this wasn't directed at you, I kinda started ranting there. At that point in the post it was more of an understood you, and there are plenty of people who stated they think that to eliminate camping we should lengthen the variance, which frustrates and infuriates me because it is such an ignorant opinion.

Opinions on switching to a flat +variance rather than a +/-?

I like a flat +6 sure. In fact, I think most raiding guilds would prefer to know exactly when something is coming up. Not to mention its more classic.

What I wonder is would you guys consider showing up 30 minutes to an hour before the boss is due camping or not? If so, then you will never see an end to camping until there is more content. There is no way to prevent these guilds from being there when they think/know a boss is gonna spawn. The ONLY way is a rotation, and I can guarantee you, it won't happen - just takes 1 guild/raid to ignore it and it's over.

Because of that, I believe the only way to move forward is to make a solution that incorporates the fact that guilds WILL be waiting for these bosses to pop, but doesn't give the first force there priority.

[atvaata]

maybe people shouldnt just be retarded and we wouldnt have these problems :D

[astarothel]

Think I would prefer a variance to flat still for this specific proposal, if only because everyone and their mom showing up 30 before would be a logistical nightmare for finding out who hit it first, people not in that raid clearing the zone, abacab trains, etc. I think some variance would help a little in keeping a higher volume of players that aren't exactly friendly separated from one another. Know when it is exactly and you have 50+ IB, 50+ DA, whatever Divinity and Remedy toss in there, and an Abacab to wreak havoc for good measure. That kettle has a high potential to boil over into ugly quick with first to engage, people getting bored, potential zone crashes, magical "mysterious" zone crashes, etc.

30 minutes early isn't a big deal to me -- it's not camping, it's more like zoning in and going to grab a snack or beer.

What I meant by a flat positive variance was a positive only variance, so the spawn time is always cycling forward, rather than having the potential to seesaw back and forth a +/- variance would have.

The only valid solution for guilds waiting for the boss to pop without using first in force will rely on some form of this: finding some way to decide who goes first, without making it a necessitated GM overseen clusterfuck.

As of right now the only three ways I can see to decide that sort of thing.

1) /randoming with groups present, or

2) some sort of rotation or changing it up based upon who's present at the target
i) negotiation [passing on later targets, trading in an individual that needs a drop from the target and presenting a fair chance for them to get it],
ii) can't get two in a row [why show up then ffs... not a fan],
iii) something with a dynamic rotation like SK, or

3) deciding who would get it ahead of time somehow (obvious example not many people would probably like to see -- a straight rotation. Ewwwww)

maybe people shouldnt just be retarded and we wouldnt have these problems :D

http://badanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/10/10-reasons-your-co-workers-make-stupid.html

[Chicka]

I have the final and indisputable solution to all this: put the boss mobs on a +/- 50 year variance and simulate patch day/server down repops.

Sprinkle in first to engage.

Done.

Classic style.

[Deric]

I'm still hoping for some auto-response from the mob indicating who had first aggro. It would eliminate any conjecture and there is a random nature to it. Such a spawn could be tweaked to delay interactions even.. Its hard to say what is within the ability to program such a thing without developers' input.

Honestly, unless the variance is changed from ~1-30 days or some sort of silliness, the dragons/gods will be continued to be camped in one form or another. That is just how it is in MMO's that do not have instanced features.

[Lazortag]

I don't know if this has been suggested, but why not put some of the dragons/gods on an overlapping timer so that no guild could possibly camp all of them at once?

[MrSquirrelbane]

I don't know if this has been suggested, but why not put some of the dragons/gods on an overlapping timer so that no guild could possibly camp all of them at once?

Server gets more and more level 50s every day. Therefore the top two guilds on the server get more apps every day. Its conceivable (but not ideal) that either DA/IB could recruit enough to run more than one full raid force at a time. *shudder* At the thought of having a guild that size hit a single target. The internet as a whole is in better shape these days and might be able to handle it. I wonder if EQ's netcode could?

Fuck megazerg guilds though. Used to have a guild on Solusek Ro that would hit Velious targets with 100+ people. More often than not they'd lag themselves out and wipe, but they still tried.

[guineapig]

I don't know if this has been suggested, but why not put some of the dragons/gods on an overlapping timer so that no guild could possibly camp all of them at once?

Well spawning them all at once would solve this.

Even if the camping guilds over-recruited to compensate you would see many more wipes due to only having 15 in zone versus the 30-50 man zergs that go on now. Also you would see more disgruntled members leaving if this were to happen.

It's one thing that keeps getting overlooked and has been mentioned many times before. Every week or two all raid bosses should be spawning at the same time, just like they did on live. THAT IS CLASSIC!

I can pretty much guarantee you that no guild would be able to kill all 6 raid bosses simultaneously. They will have to pick 1, maybe 2 targets tops. But since other guilds would also be there they would not be able to spread themselves too thin for fear of a wipe which would mean they would loose their shot.

I'm not going to say the phrase that I've been beating to death in the past but you know what I'm getting at. Just respawn the damn raid bosses at once. The way it's always been on live.

[girth]

Every week or two all raid bosses should be spawning at the same time, just like they did on live. THAT IS CLASSIC!

+1

[guineapig]

^

[Icecometus]

For some reason the Devs hate this idea... they refuse to consider it. As I stated before simply respawning the mobs by hand doesn't seem like it would be much of a pain since you are doing the patch anyway. Perhaps one of the new devs that also play the game could do it for the players sake ;)

[Aeolwind]

2 points regarding this thread & some incentive:

1) Penalties not steep enough.

2) I'd be willing to make a concession on patch day repops if you jack asses could come to an agreement that doesn't involve the following 3 things.


Complaining
GM intervention
Hatred

[Beau]

I think its really great what you're trying to do Dumesh. I personally, really hope we can see a resolution similar to what you have posted.

Aeolwind basically summed up the recipe for success for any system...

Dragon camping will likely not go away with this system as much as it pains me to admit it. The gods, MAYBE, but also unlikely.
This will, however, be useful in Kunark and later. With enough raid targets, epic fights, etc. this can easily deter camping.

With as old as this game is, I don't think there is any question what First to engage really entails. I think the problem lies more in the fact that even if/when something like this is implemented, the second someone feels they lose their entitlement they will go crying to the gm. And the big problem with that, is their views of entitlement can be skewed based on how close they can find loop holes to the letter of the law, and honestly , its not always wrong. Player A took a screenshot at Y time from X angle. Player A /petitions and submits screenshots. Then you consider it is really not difficult to doctor screenshots. So from this we have a GM that has to play judge to 60 people based off of one persons perspective. GM intervention HAS to be at a bug or suspendable/bannable level only.

That being said. As Aeolwind stated, Penalties have to be incredibly steep, or there will be too many people trying to one up the system. Might be a little chaotic at first but I promise when you weed out the problems, things will likely smooth out.

As far as Rants and flames, complaining, and hatred ... That's going to happen. No matter what. You could stand out at Ec tunnel handing out free brass armor and buffs all day, there will always be people that feel some false sense of entitlement and try to ruin things for everyone else. If its not valid, I find it's best to just ignore it.

[Humerox]

Excellent proposal, here.

Supreme would get what he wants, too....since Aeolwind would be willing to loosen up on the spawns if agreement is made.

+1 to the idea, and hopefully discussion can work out the rest. No system is perfect, but ya gotta admit this covers a lot of bases.
And it adheres to the KISS system.

Penalties? Permanent account ban. Seriously. Would make people think quite seriously about their actions.

[rioisk]

Regardless of any system in place I think that guilds like DA/IB will still sit there and camp the mob. There's really no argument guys. Any rule set that isn't forced rotation will result in DA/IB doing what is necessary, spending 24 hrs a day if need be, to get the mobs. Why can't you all just accept it? Some people's degree of nerdom is greater then your own.

Just remember though. If you win the special Olympics you are still retarded. Apply that to this game.

[Messianic]

Just remember though. If you win the special Olympics you are still retarded. Apply that to this game.

Too mean...

[astarothel]

Any rule set that isn't forced rotation will result in DA/IB doing what is necessary

Overgeneralization, in addition to being incorrect.

[girth]

Regardless of any system in place I think that guilds like DA/IB will still sit there and camp the mob. There's really no argument guys. Any rule set that isn't forced rotation will result in DA/IB doing what is necessary, spending 24 hrs a day if need be, to get the mobs. Why can't you all just accept it? Some people's degree of nerdom is greater then your own.

Just remember though. If you win the special Olympics you are still retarded. Apply that to this game.

Why would we camp a mob for days if we didn't have to be the FIRST 15 in the zone? That is beyond retarded.

[Humerox]

You guys are running down the road of lock/R&F post move by Aeolwind.

Come up with something constructive to say, whether for or against.

First Aggro + 15
==========
The first guild (or non-guild based raid force) to aggro a raid target gets 15 minutes to begin the fight as long as they maintain unbroken chain of aggro for the whole 15 minutes. No other forces may attempt to take aggro or KS from the first raid force unless the first force is unable to reduce the raid target to 95% or less health after 15 minutes or if the guild (or non-guild based raid force) loses aggro at any point. If either of those two conditions is met, then the mob becomes Free For All until the next person from a different raid force aggros. If all remaining live members of the first force who have engaged the target in any way have feigned death, the the aggro chain is considered broken, even if they have DoTs or other spells on the raid target that would cause re-aggro if the FD members were to stand up. In cases where the Raid mob instantly has people from multiple forces on its hate list due to spawning in the midst of multiple players, anyone who pulls aggro who is not from the same raid force as the player who got initial aggro will be considered guilty of KSing unless he or she backs off and allows the force with first aggro to reassert control. The guild who attained first aggro is free to allow the raid mob to kill any players from other guilds who were on the initial hate list from being with aggro range at spawn time, or any who appear on the hate list by trying to help others not from the force with first aggro who were.
==========

EDIT: The tentative definition of "begin the fight" will be: reduce the mob to 95% health or lower. -- Thanks Dawgrin
EDIT: Made language a bit more precise, and added new provision to handle camping "on the spawn point". -- Thanks Astarothel

That's it, that's the whole system right there.

I also have several suggestions to the dev team that I believe should be enacted to help this rule fulfill some of the goals we as a community and they as developers have in regards to the raiding scene on this server. These suggestions are needed to make a significant impact in the nature of the raiding scene on the server above and beyond my rule change. They are the complement that allows my one single rule to work. I will simply list the changes here. A discussion about the reasons for each change will follow in the second, third, and fourth posts of this thread.

1. Raid mobs should have a flat 6 hours added to their base spawn intervals with no variance. EDIT: -- no more variance, reduce camping

2. Raid mobs should have an line of text in /say triggered when they are aggro'd from a clear aggro list state that lists the name of the player who got aggro.

3. The punishments for KSing or Training on a raid target should be made much more severe, and escalate based on the number of previous offenses. I suggest a 30day account and IP ban for the offending party. I have seen other good suggestions ranging for a shorter ban, but for the whole guild, up to disbanding the entire guild and perma-banning the officers. As long as the punishments are severe, the purpose is served.

Goals for the Raid Rule
1. Ensure that raid mobs can span in any time zone
2. Limit the need for developer involvement "babysitting"
3. Promote competition based on skill related to game-play
4. Be compatible with the entrance of new players on the raiding scene
5. Be compatible with the addition of new raid targets to the game

Spawn Variance

The original reason for spawn variance was to make sure that a mob does not exclusively appear in the prime time of one time zone. It is intended to help distribute the mobs around the clock so that all time zones have a chance at getting the mob during their prime time. I think that this is the best usage of the spawn variance. However, the spawn variance that we are using is way too big. We tried to use it to make camping the mobs more difficult. However, as we can all see, this did not work... at all. So now, we have mob spawns that, combined with the raid rules agreed upon by the majority of the raiding guilds encourage 4 day rotating afk camps of the raid mobs. Camping is better discouraged by other means. So, that is why I propose eliminating the spawn variance and simply adding a flat 6 hours to the spawn time of raid bosses. This accomplished several things.

1. It guarantees that the mobs will progress around the clock within a few spawns giving the euros, aussies, and usa players all equal shots at the mobs during their own prime time.

2. It enhances the value of intelligence (knowledge of the mobs last time of death). Knowing the time of death is more important for not missing the next spawn with your tracker or raid force.

3. It keeps the number of raid spawns very close to their actual original spawn rate, which was the original intent for how fast raid level items were supposed to enter the game.

Mob Aggro Messages

Each raid target mob should have a message that they deliver in /say or /shout when they are aggro'd from the state of having a clear aggro list. It should be something along the lines of Lord Nagafen shouts, "How dare you presume to enter my lair, Dumesh! Ah, but I was getting hungry for some Troll anyway, do come in."

I'll admit this is a non-classic proposal, although I feel that it is in line with the classic philosophy. There are already a multitude of mobs that will /say something or emote something in response to being aggro'd from the state of having a clear aggro list. Death touching mobs will also specifically call out a players name. I imagine (hope) it would not be too difficult to add or modify these existing behaviors to have the /say incorporate the name of the player pulling aggro. It is certainly some work for the devs, but once the method is perfected, I believe that it wouldn't take very long to add it to each raid mob as Sky, Kunark, and Velious are added. I'm also sure the devs would have all the help they could want from the community for coming up with witty or clever lines for each mob as well.

This suggestion is directly related to goal #2. The devs won't have to spend much time sifting through logs, nor will the players have any ambiguity about who got aggro first.

Severe Punishments

I am promoting severe punishments for 2 reasons.

1. They will reduce the instances of players KSing raid mobs or training raid forces under my one rule of raiding.

2. Because of #1, the devs/guides/GMs will have a reduced demand for their services in moderating raid mob disputes.

There are existing rules of the server that prohibit KSing and training. These, combined with "First Aggro + 15" and Mob Aggro Messages present a situation where guilds can compete and know instantly and without error who won. Without adequate punishment for breaking the KSing and Training rules, guilds who lost the race to aggro, might be tempted to KS or train the winning guild in hopes of obtaining the loot, counting on the devs not wanting to investigate, or a lenient punishment. With adequate punishment, we should expect a grudging /say or /shout of "gg, guild x, you got him this time, but we'll be back." Perhaps it won't be an instant transition, but it should come swiftly if a few guilds actually do KS and face the new punishments.

Ultimately, I hope for developer and player response to make sure that this does satisfy all the major goals of both parties with regard to the raiding scene, and subsequent response from the developers to enact this as server policy.

Lastly, let me implore the community to keep this thread shit-free. Please present your opinion of the system if you like. Please present constructive criticism if you like. Please try to argue the merits of particular points where you can, which is much more useful than just saying "ur plan sux, dude!" If you must troll, make a new post in R&F about how big of a douche you think I am. I'll come play in there, I promise.

2 points regarding this thread & some incentive:

1) Penalties not steep enough.

2) I'd be willing to make a concession on patch day repops if you jack asses could come to an agreement that doesn't involve the following 3 things.


Complaining
GM intervention
Hatred

[yaaaflow]

Regardless of any system in place I think that guilds like DA/IB will still sit there and camp the mob. There's really no argument guys. Any rule set that isn't forced rotation will result in DA/IB doing what is necessary, spending 24 hrs a day if need be, to get the mobs. Why can't you all just accept it? Some people's degree of nerdom is greater then your own.

Just remember though. If you win the special Olympics you are still retarded. Apply that to this game.

Applying that to this game: Since in the special olympics all competitors are retarded, so must all players of this game. Since IB/DA win at this, they could be considered a stronger, better class of retard than the others on this server. did i get that right?

[jeffd]

hurr durr angsty teenage bullshit

Haha, wow. I barely play on P99, but I read the forums because it's hilarious because watching you kids shit all over eachother and argue about whose emulated pixels are more important.

Just wanted to thank you for literally making me laugh out loud at your retarded rant. I thought some of these other guys took this game way too seriously, but you definitely take the cake.

A++ would read again.