Class R and Poopsocks

[drktmplr12]

Disclaimer: I do not care about this Inny dispute, and this thread isn't here to discuss it. Goto RnF if you want to talk about it.

Recently, Derub has posted an amendment of sorts to raid policy:

We are moving to a system where raid disputes are player adjudicated and resolved. If there is a dispute involving two or more parties in which a rule has been broken, bringing that dispute to the GM's is a last resort, after all other options have been explored. We greatly encourage players involved in disputes to work with each other to find their own solutions to situations that arise during raids, and reaching a compromise that will almost always be preferable to GM intervention. Obviously this is not a new notion by any means - but from here on out it will be the regular procedure for handling a dispute, as opposed to the exception.

In the past, the go-to solution for a raid dispute was to put in a petition and let the staff decide what to do. We feel there are few, if any, situations that cannot be resolved through cooperation and compromise. If a dispute needs to be brought to a GM, it is very likely both sides will walk away unhappy with the result. It is therefore in all parties best interest to work together to come to their own resolution.

This change will largely affect Class C guilds, as Class R guilds have their own prearranged agreement as to how Class R spawns should be handled that is conducive to an environment that produces fewer disputes. This system, however, is not class exclusive, and if one or more groups are involved in a dispute, we expect the situation to be handled in a similar fashion regardless of class affiliation.

From this point forward we expect players to exhaust every possible option to reach an agreement during a dispute before involving the staff. We do not believe this to be an unreasonable request, as everyone here has the knowledge, capacity, and understanding to be able to work out these problems on their own.

We are confident this will provide less staff intervention, more cooperation between competing guilds, and an overall better raid scene for everyone. We look forward to an exciting and fun year of raiding across Antonica, Kunark, and Velious!

Let me explain my thoughts:

1. It's against raid policy to poopsock merb spawns.
2. Class R has player arranged agreements.
3. Suppose AG is up for draco according to the Class R agreement.
4. Suppose draco is in window.

Could it be considered OKAY to have a raid force clearing trash in fear while waiting for him to pop?

This is assuming all eligible parties decline to make a complaint about said rule to the CSR. In other words, the players came to an agreement that they do not care to get CSR involved because it really makes no difference for Class R to wait around outside a zone or near the spawn point. It just seems stupid to me that we can't be in the zone and are forced to poopsock instead of at least clearing trash and hoping he pops while we are there.

AS far as I know, there are 0 guilds outside of Class C and Class R capable of doing anything meaningful with regards to raid mobs. That's why I bring this up. I think this is EXACTLY the type of thing that the CSR wants to see: Players resolving potential disputes.

Thanks for reading~

[Erati]

cant figure out which of the two identical posts you made to respond on.

I believe Sirken had clarified this previously and said there would only be a problem if another "Lord Bob esque non-rotation" guild wanted to compete for that draco.

Since there are currently no guilds that are looking to compete on the R mobs that are also not in the rotation, I dont think you would hear many complaints from the other R guilds about AG wishing to do this.


If all the R guilds got together and agreed upon something like this would it then be law? ( until another Lord Bob shows up? )

[Troubled]

I don't know if I'd break stone tablet rules no matter how many players agreed with it.

[drktmplr12]

I made two posts?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/58339/2349556-1301367296_1.jpg

I'm not proposing we want to do this. Just want to make that clear.

I know most people in Class R guilds are not eager to toe the line and would prefer to just wait outside. I was not aware that Sirken had clarified this and I can't find a reference using forum search.

I don't think that it would be law, but instead just a player enforced agreement. The only means to get others to work within it would be to disrupt their ability to participate in the community by refusing ports, groups, buffs, etc.

[Erati]

the post with Sirk's quote has been deleted or moved.

It was a similar post by one of your officers regarding draco actually.

Sirken said he wouldnt have a problem with it, but the problem arises when there was another active R guild looking to compete rather than rotate. So while he understood where AG was coming from and he didnt have a problem with it, it would be unfair to another guild actively competing on that mob and would warrant a suspension.

He did say tho, wish I could find it, that he wouldnt take issue with the R guild that was up for the R mob being in the zone clearing etc actively waiting for that pop.

If there is no one else competing for the spawn then there really is no rule broken in terms of 'fairness' and spirit of the game.


however as Troubled said, for now its pretty hard to just go against a server rule on hope and logic :)

[drktmplr12]

I don't know if I'd break stone tablet rules no matter how many players agreed with it.

I understand they are stone tablet rules, however if the CSR doesn't need to get involved because the players came to their own resolution, what do they care? That's exactly what they want it seems.

A more extreme example (let's not get caught up on the specifics of this hypothetical):

If all Class C guilds WANTED to train each other in VP, and agreed to it.. and 100% of their players agreed to not peitionquest, why would the CSR come in and create an issue where there is none? Regardless of the stone tablets... that seems to be the opposite of what the CSR is trying to accomplish with the policy.

Alot of times people get caught up in the process of solving a problem they forget what the goal is and get stuck on specifics. Specifically, the goal of the raid policy is to give players a guideline so CSR doesn't need to get involved. Many still fail to understand this. If players are working together inside the server rules (no exploiting, cheating, RMT, etc.) but outside the raid policy, what's really the problem? The end goal not getting CSR involved is still satisfied.

[Raavak]

If there is no one else competing for the spawn then there really is no rule broken in terms of 'fairness' and spirit of the game.
The problem arises only if a guild wants to compete for said Class R mob.

Its somewhat of a gray area and probably would rarely come into play. Just be observant and if by some chance a guild chooses to go after the mob (draco) and you were clearing when it spawned, you forfeit it. If you kill it anyway you broke the carved-in-stone rules. But 99% of the time draco is all yours.

In short, play it by ear. Lord Bob was an anomaly.

[Sylexis]

I find that "Fair" by American definition means equal or in MY favor, if it is in THEIR favor it is now "unfair."

Any instance of "something happened in their favor, I must have found a loophole in the raiding rules I should go post on the forums." Is usually because of the American definition of fair. I.e. Inny, recently and any other FFA or probably class C mob that pops.

As for your specific question, if I am not mistaken it is an offense punishable by some sort of temporary raid ban for more than 2 players of said guild to be in a zone before the mob is up, but if I am also not mistaken that is ONLY in the case of FFA mobs.

A Class R mob with you next up on the rotation? You can go dance a jig on his spawn point with you and 100 of your closest buddies if you want, it's your mob.

In short, preclear fear if it's class R and you are next, do not clear fear if it's FFA. If it's Class R and someone ELSES guild's turn at the mob, get the guilds leadership's consent to take out the trash (for armor drops, don't you dare touch said mob).

[Erati]

The problem arises only if a guild wants to compete for said Class R mob.

Its somewhat of a gray area and probably would rarely come into play. Just be observant and if by some chance a guild chooses to go after the mob (draco) and you were clearing when it spawned, you forfeit it. If you kill it anyway you broke the carved-in-stone rules. But 99% of the time draco is all yours.

In short, play it by ear. Lord Bob was an anomaly.

this summed it up quite nicely and should be /thread

[Vlak]

In a situation where one guild is killing trash in PoF and another wants in to kill Drach, wouldn't it just be common sense for the latter to ask the first what they're after?

If they have different goals, no issue. If they're both after drach, but one's doing all the clearing to prep for it.... hairy situation (though, personally, I would say the takedown-capable force that's already in PoF has priority, but idk what the rules are on P99 about this).

Either way, proactive communication is the key. The two forces can work something out, whether it's the interlopers going for another target, or the two joining forces for an allied raid, perhaps expanding their original raid targets.

Like Raavak said: Play it by ear.

We can present alternative examples all day and not cover them all, so why bother?

[Erati]

^ Classic EQ, yes that was how you did it. Talked to the other guild present.

P99 a lil different with mob tier allocations displaying which group of people can go for what. So in OP's case the draco he would be referring to would already been set aside for AG via the class R rotation and thus there would most likely be zero complaints about AG being in the zone clearing trash when it spawns.

The only problem arises, as myself and Ravaak have pointed out, is when another guild is interested in draco and does not care about the player made agreement that they probably didnt agree to. So to them the rotation is just a word and draco is what they want.

When that is the situation, then AG most definitely is in the wrong for being in the zone and also going for draco when he pops, but that is only if another guild is coming in for the spawn.

[khanable]

I don't know if I'd break stone tablet rules no matter how many players agreed with it.

^^^

I'd personally have no issue with it

However, we must operate within server rules at all times.

We are not above server rules simply because we all agree on something.

Be mindful that you're breaking the server rule if doing something like this, and be ready to forfeit the encounter if you have a guild contesting you.

[Vlak]

But if the agreement/rotation has AG lined up for the draco kill, and they're in the zone waiting for spawn, I would think they have a more legit claim than a 3rd party who doesn't recognize the agreement/rotation.

Couldn't the classic "talking to the other guys" strategy still work? Even if the interloping guild is not on the rotation, could they not semi-insert themselves on it by joining up with already-clearing guild? True this messes up the loots, especially if both groups are after the same drop. But if the guilds are tiered then why not institute a "keying" system for up-and-comers who want a shot?

Ex: You want a shot at draco? Join an existing rotation member on a kill (pre-arranged or impromptu) and show you can handle it. Kill the draco, you get on the rotation, your guild moves up a tier (or progresses towards moving up a tier). Looting rights etc. would probably have to be case-by-case for these sorts of things, though, which would be a snag to work out.

[khanable]

But if the agreement/rotation has AG lined up for the draco kill, and they're in the zone waiting for spawn, I would think they have a more legit claim than a 3rd party who doesn't recognize the agreement/rotation.

Couldn't the classic "talking to the other guys" strategy still work? Even if the interloping guild is not on the rotation, could they not semi-insert themselves on it by joining up with already-clearing guild? True this messes up the loots, especially if both groups are after the same drop. But if the guilds are tiered then why not institute a "keying" system for up-and-comers who want a shot?

Ex: You want a shot at draco? Join an existing rotation member on a kill (pre-arranged or impromptu) and show you can handle it. Kill the draco, you get on the rotation, your guild moves up a tier (or progresses towards moving up a tier). Looting rights etc. would probably have to be case-by-case for these sorts of things, though, which would be a snag to work out.

The rotation guild still needs to abide by server rules. Our rotation is player enforced and not server rule. The GM's play no role in it other than ensuring we are playing by server rules. In the case that a guild on rotation is in zone waiting for their mob, and a 3rd party guild moves in post-spawn, the guild on rotation, by server rules, must forfeit the mob unless the 3rd party wishes to work with them or otherwise 'blesses' the encounter. Basically, both guilds would need to be in documented agreement that the rotation guild is OK to kill. If the 3rd party has issue with it and wants to engage the mob, it is the duty of the rotation guild to forfeit the encounter. Note this is still in violation of server rules, however, with no one arguing one side or the other it falls into a 'gray' area.

The entire point of the newer raid system was to lessen the load of the GM's and promote communication between guilds - guilds are to solve their own issues with other guilds, and only when this option is exhausted can it be taken to the GM's.


Rogean does not want us to have a barrier for entry on our rotation - we're an inclusive group - if a guild wants a shot, they get added to the rotation and they get their shot.

[drktmplr12]

this summed it up quite nicely

Agreed.

^^^
However, we must operate within server rules at all times.

We are not above server rules simply because we all agree on something.

Be mindful that you're breaking the server rule if doing something like this, and be ready to forfeit the encounter if you have a guild contesting you.

Its kind of a catch 22, because at the same time we are operating within the policy to work among ourselves to resolve disputes. This helps the CSR not be involved, which is the goal of the entire policy.

But if the agreement/rotation has AG lined up for the draco kill, and they're in the zone waiting for spawn, I would think they have a more legit claim than a 3rd party who doesn't recognize the agreement/rotation.

Exactly my point, as it stands a casual guild is penalized a hanging out in fear while their mob is in window. Now they can't clear for armor they actually need even though they have a capable group.

I'm not proposing a new rule to fit this situation, I just thought I would start a discussion regarding it because in the spirit of the rules (keep people happy while keeping CSR out of it) it is really fucking silly.

[drktmplr12]

Note this is still in violation of server rules, however, with no one arguing one side or the other it falls into a 'gray' area.

exactly what i'm trying to point out. you said it much better than i did.

[baalzy]

Here are some hypothetical scenarios and their potential outcomes.

Scenario 1:
AG is clearing PoF. Draco pops. AG kills. Nobody complains. AG is in the clear.

Scenario 2:
AG is clearing PoF. Draco pops. AG kills. Lord Bob 2.0 petitions. AG is 2 week raid suspended, loot is deleted.

Scenario 3:
BDA is clearing PoF. Draco pops. AG zones in and Kills. Lord Bob 2.0 petitions. BDA & AG are in the clear.

Scenario 4:
Lord Bob 2.0 is clearing PoF. Draco Pops. Bob 2.0 kills. A petition could be made which would cause a raid suspension of Bob 2.0 and delete their loot.

Scenario 5:
Lord Bob 2.0 is clearing PoF. Draco Pops. Bob 2.0 leaves because they're now ineligible. AG zones in and kills. Everyone is in the clear.

Scenario 3 is the safest way to have fear clear/semi-clear for AG to come in and take Draco. There is still the chance of a Bob 2.0 guild piggy backing on BDAs clearing and outracing AG to the pop, but there's no risk of AG being sanctioned for rule violation (assuming no training occurs).

[Kekephee]

Personally, if a mob belongs to a guild per the rotation and that guild wants to be in the zone when that mob spawns, I don't see any reason why it should be a thing. It's not like they're racing anyone to the mob and being in zone gives them an unfair advantage. Grind some exp in Seb before you go after Trakanon, by all means.

[arsenalpow]

It violates a server rule. No class based agreement can supersede a server rule. Being in zone when the mob spawns disqualifies a guild from chasing that spawn. Killing the mob could potentially prevent a group of individuals from going after it even if that group of individuals doesn't even exist currently.

I'd play it safe and be out of the zone when the mob spawns.

[Vlak]

It violates a server rule. No class based agreement can supersede a server rule. Being in zone when the mob spawns disqualifies a guild from chasing that spawn. Killing the mob could potentially prevent a group of individuals from going after it even if that group of individuals doesn't even exist currently.

I'd play it safe and be out of the zone when the mob spawns.

OK, I really think this server rule is bunk. I get the essence behind the rule: keeps one top-tier guild from having a raid presence constantly hovering over a spawn point. However, especially when there's a rotation and it's already pre-determined (player side) that Guild A is going to take down this target, I see no reason why they should forfeit their chance at that mob based solely on the fact that they showed up early. Was there such a problem with guilds doing this permacamping of raid targets before the rule was written? (if so, then there's plenty of reason for this rule and I revise my opinion)

Rules are in place for two reasons: 1: to keep idiots from killing themselves doing or not doing things that are common sense. 2: to keep assholes from exploiting a system to the detriment of others. Can we just try to not be assholes and enjoy some freedom from lawyers?

[drktmplr12]

This thread makes me mostly sad. :(

[Babayaaga]

If what I have gleaned from Derub's quoted post implies that players can affect/impact server rules provided there is a pre-arranged player agreement between participating guilds, this would also mean players can change established rules provided that all parties involved agree to it in advance (this naturally includes the "OK" of a change from server staff, not just the players).

It sounds to me like the server staff prefers agreements that result in less CSR involvement. It also sounds like there have been far fewer disputes in Class R than there have been in Class C or FFA situations. It also sounds like this post was made to encourage Class C to make some efforts to cooperate in a similar manner demonstrated by Class R. Derub's post also hints as an encouraging warning (much like Rogean's warning last December), as much as it is a request.

While I understand the hesitation to do anything outside the written rule, I also see how something like what is being suggested working flawlessly in Class R, because guilds already seem to have an idea who is up for X spawn on any given rotation. After all, if you already know you're up for CT, why not plan ahead and do a Fear Clear first? It's certainly the more "classic" way of doing things, and I'm also sure it would work better for guild scheduling of events for members.

Until everyone can understand the global importance of cooperation, and how it affects server administration and satisfaction of the player base as a whole, I cannot see how arrangements like this can be made in FFA or Class C situations currently, but I have faith that this has potential to change.

[drktmplr12]

It also sounds like this post was made to encourage Class C to make some efforts to cooperate in a similar manner demonstrated by Class R.

That wasn't my intention, but it would be nice.

I just feel that the purpose of this rule falls outside the scope of how its being interpreted. So we are trying to kept imaginary Lord Bob 2.0 happy by poopsocking in Ferrott waiting for draco to pop.. when the rule was implemented specifically to discourage poop socking of large amounts of players? Like someone said before.. this rule did nothing except move the sock outside the zone

Subjecting Class R to this rule makes no sense. This is what Class R is for... we impose restrictions on what we will engage and agree to play nice, but still face the penalty of socking outside of fear or hate. We aren't camping out alt armies because most of us don't have them. So I don't see why this rule is relevant to Class R.

It really kills the fun to not be allowed to clear a zone because a mob is in window and its our turn to kill it.
Seems wayyyyyyy ass backwards to me.

Thank god we are preserving Lord Bob 2.0's ability to experience classic Everquest even if they don't want to be part of our rotation...

[drktmplr12]

Was there such a problem with guilds doing this permacamping of raid targets before the rule was written? (if so, then there's plenty of reason for this rule and I revise my opinion)

Its my understanding that the sole purpose of this rule was to stop 180 people from standing on Trak's spawn point spamming javelins. It acknowledges the need for guilds to maintain a presence in order to communicate that an interesting target has spawned, while preventing entire raids from sitting and waiting.

If you can imagine 180 players from 4 guilds standing around for 8 hours waiting for Trak to spawn.. then Trak spawns and dies in 12 seconds.. that's what it used to be like before the recent raid policy. Now he dies in 12 minutes. a small improvement.

[baalzy]

Essentially this is a law that is on the books but it only gets enforced if the 'victim' chooses to press charges. The biggest problem is the fact that anyone who isn't currently regarded as Class C could be considered a victim if this scenario.

Honestly, until a Bob 2.0 rears its head I'd just go about doing your clears while the mob is Class R and in window if you're the slated rotation guild. Worst case scenario is 1 mob gets deleted and the rotation has to be shuffled slightly to account for the one guild that got suspended.

[Babayaaga]

That wasn't my intention, but it would be nice.

I meant Derub's post. It sounds like the server admins would prefer the lessened petition load they're currently enjoying from Class R versus what is being experienced during FFA and Class C engagements.

[Babayaaga]

Its my understanding that the sole purpose of this rule was to stop 180 people from standing on Trak's spawn point spamming javelins. It acknowledges the need for guilds to maintain a presence in order to communicate that an interesting target has spawned, while preventing entire raids from sitting and waiting.

If you can imagine 180 players from 4 guilds standing around for 8 hours waiting for Trak to spawn.. then Trak spawns and dies in 12 seconds.. that's what it used to be like before the recent raid policy. Now he dies in 12 minutes. a small improvement.

This is a really good point IMHO, but I also think there's a big difference between a Plane and a regular zone like Seb. People are currently going to Fear and Hate for one reason. This may change when Velious comes out, however. Perhaps we need to look at a conditional provision? Again, I think Class R is the only tier that can work something like this out unless Class C can demonstrate more cooperative behaviour... so FFA and Class C cycles would be out for said provision.