PDA

View Full Version : First in Force.


maestrom
10-26-2015, 04:02 PM
Hey folks!

I've been reading a lot of craziness on the forums lately and I wanted to see what people think about raid rules. This is what I think would work. I wanted to make some acknowledgements and assumptions to start out with though.

First. I'm fully aware that the staff "likes" it the way things are and that any major changes like the one I'm about to suggest are unlikely. Thinking about this kinda stuff is just fun for me and I wanted to see what other people thought.

Second. I'm really not looking to start a fight here. Maybe FTE is really the "best" way to do things. I'm perfectly happy to be convinced that FTE leads to a healthier, happier, more fun server. To that end, go wild with comparing different scenarios under both rulesets and why one or the other yields a better result.

The Rule: A guild or alliance may at one time claim one unclaimed target by: (1) gathering its raid force in the zone where the target spawns and (2) communicating clearly to the zone, and to any party who asks, which target the guild or alliance intends to claim. Once a claim is made, the claiming guild or alliance must maintain its raid force in the zone or forfeit its claim. A guild or alliance has 2 hours from the spawn of the target to kill its target, at which point the target becomes FTE. Unclaimed targets are FTE.

Definitions:

Alliance: A group of two or more guilds that have agreed in advance and on the P99 forums to act together for the purposes of FIF. Formation/Dissolution of an alliance will take effect 7 days after both guilds have posted in the appropriate P99 forum.

Raid Force: This term would need negotiation and would be target specific. One objective way to address this issue would be to look at raid force sizes for the target for the past 5-6 kills and take an average.

Target: This is the one that needs the most negotiation. Statue but not AoW? NToV targets but not Aary? I think that generally, Target = 1 single mob + anything it triggers. This would keep people from claiming AoW and then another guild claiming Statue and then sitting on Statue for the full 2 hours to grief the AoW claimant. Similarly, there would be problems with Aary that would need to get worked out. I know currently Rampage is the only guild doing most of NToV, but it won't stay that way forever.

The reason I like this system is it forces guilds to prioritize targets and it allows smaller guilds to pick up lower priority targets without fear of groups of Uber_Guild_1 alts from jumping past them to snipe a Trak kill. Similarly, there is relatively small opportunity to "steal" targets through rule lawyering here. There's no reason to train trash away, because you can take your time and clear it. Any petitionquesting would take place at IZ, without trains, and would be over whether or not the raid force was actually in the zone, which can be pretty easily tracked.

Let me know what you guys think!

Samoht
10-26-2015, 04:07 PM
Sounds impossible to enforce.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 04:16 PM
Sounds impossible to enforce.

I don't really see how this could be harder to enforce than the current model described by sirken in his most recent chat.

No need for competing fraps or trains or rule lawyering.

Samoht
10-26-2015, 04:26 PM
I don't really see how this could be harder to enforce than the current model described by sirken in his most recent chat.

Logs vs he-said-she-said.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 04:30 PM
Logs vs he-said-she-said.

I guess I'm not understanding the situation you're imagining. /who says 60 guildA in the zone. GuildB says "nuh uh they only have 10 people". Should be pretty easy to check who is right...

am0n
10-26-2015, 04:52 PM
I like your idea.

Unfortunately, as you said, the server staff, who don't play on the server, like things how they are. And the people who are friendly with the server staff also likes things how they are, because they get most of the kills and aren't particularly interested in seeing smaller guilds get in on the fun.

In the end, it probably will be harder to police, since a guild can have multiple forces, claiming multiple spawns, and just argue that at the time they were asked in Zone A which spawn they were claiming, they claimed the spawn in Zone A. But five minutes later, when asked in Zone B, they changed their plans and claimed the target in Zone B.

What it comes down to is shitheads will be shitheads when it comes to pixels.

Samoht
10-26-2015, 04:54 PM
You seem to assume that the top-end guilds on this server have some kind of courtesy. They do not. If a guild is deemed to be moving too slow in the eyes of another, they will be leapfrogged.

Also, who is to determine what arbitrary amount of bodies constitutes a "force?" Are you going to set it per encounter? Will the values be adjusted down as the expected gear values move up?

No. Your solution is not better than the existing one.

One thing you have to remember is that this server caters to a specific class of man-children. You have to accommodate the worst in them, not the best. A FTE gives a clear log of who was the first to engage the mob, regardless of the amount of training or general douchebaggery occurring. Asking these people to agree to who was there first in force would turn the emphasis from something automatic like FTE to something that would have to be proven after the fact on every raid target.

You're basically moving the onus from legitimate kills to legitimate force, which still leaves room for young lawyers to skew the interpretation.

This is why they moved to instances on live.

Morlaeth
10-26-2015, 05:09 PM
This is so 2010.

Oleris
10-26-2015, 05:10 PM
listen to sirkens last twitch broadcast about the issues FIF brought....

maestrom
10-26-2015, 05:32 PM
You seem to assume that the top-end guilds on this server have some kind of courtesy. They do not. If a guild is deemed to be moving too slow in the eyes of another, they will be leapfrogged.

Also, who is to determine what arbitrary amount of bodies constitutes a "force?" Are you going to set it per encounter? Will the values be adjusted down as the expected gear values move up?

No. Your solution is not better than the existing one.

One thing you have to remember is that this server caters to a specific class of man-children. You have to accommodate the worst in them, not the best. A FTE gives a clear log of who was the first to engage the mob, regardless of the amount of training or general douchebaggery occurring. Asking these people to agree to who was there first in force would turn the emphasis from something automatic like FTE to something that would have to be proven after the fact on every raid target.

You're basically moving the onus from legitimate kills to legitimate force, which still leaves room for young lawyers to skew the interpretation.

This is why they moved to instances on live.

I make no assumptions about whether a guild is courteous or not.

Under this rule, if you leapfrog, you get spanked.

I discussed in my post an idea for what I think would be a workable guide for "raid force".

I guess "give them everything because they'll break the rules if they don't get what they want" isn't a satisfying solution for me, which lead me to write this up.

listen to sirkens last twitch broadcast about the issues FIF brought....

FIF was never the rule here. It has always been FTE (aside from rotations). The reason FTE has evolved into the silliness it is now is 5-6 raid forces would camp on top of spawns and kill him within seconds. This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target.

FIF moves the fixation of a right to kill a mob from the moment is engaged to the moment a raid force arrives in the zone.

Morlaeth
10-26-2015, 05:39 PM
Not true, FIF was definitely a (edit: player rule) rule in 2010. You'd need 15 players in the vicinity of the spawn.

I remember being in DA in Fear hanging out near CT's spawn with 15 members which guaranteed we had first crack at CT.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 05:46 PM
I like your idea.

Unfortunately, as you said, the server staff, who don't play on the server, like things how they are. And the people who are friendly with the server staff also likes things how they are, because they get most of the kills and aren't particularly interested in seeing smaller guilds get in on the fun.

In the end, it probably will be harder to police, since a guild can have multiple forces, claiming multiple spawns, and just argue that at the time they were asked in Zone A which spawn they were claiming, they claimed the spawn in Zone A. But five minutes later, when asked in Zone B, they changed their plans and claimed the target in Zone B.

What it comes down to is shitheads will be shitheads when it comes to pixels.

The rule says a guild or alliance can claim ONE target. The idea is to force guilds to only claim one target at a time. If a guild is claiming tormax, they cannot also claim Trak.

The whole point of this is to attach a cost to raiding for top guilds. A guild could not disengage from kael when Sev pops, go kill sev, and then come back and expect to have a shot at Tormax. They would have to decide that they want to give up their shot at Tormax in order to kill Sev.

Samoht
10-26-2015, 05:46 PM
Under this rule, if you leapfrog, you get spanked.

But how do you prove a leapfrog? More frapsquest and petitionquest? It's not a change for the better.

I guess "give them everything because they'll break the rules if they don't get what they want" isn't a satisfying solution for me, which lead me to write this up.

The only thing you're proposing here is to change the rule that they're breaking. You haven't proposed anything to keep them from breaking it. It certainly won't make things any easier on the staff.

FIF was never the rule here. It has always been FTE (aside from rotations). The reason FTE has evolved into the silliness it is now is 5-6 raid forces would camp on top of spawns and kill him within seconds. This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target.

The only thing that has ever helped to alleviate the "silliness" (your words) on this server was the class system with the class R lockouts. Still, class C was allowed to shit all over each other at will on their own days. But they at least chose to raid that way.

FIF moves the fixation of a right to kill a mob from the moment is engaged to the moment a raid force arrives in the zone.

You still haven't defined what a capable force is in any satisfactory manner. I asked if you were going to assign values to each target, and you actually dodged the question. Your original suggestion would only allow the number to go up and would never address over-gearing the encounters.

Also, what do you do about zones where multiple forces can raid concurrently (NTOV). Is only one guild allowed in the whole zone? Alternatively, what do you do now about guilds who just fill zones with AFK bodies so that they have the right to mobs when they spawn and nobody else does?

You really need to take this one back to the drawing board. And then throw that drawing board into a chipper. And then burn the remnants. And then douse the ashes with acid. It's that bad of an idea.

Like I said before, the best solution they could come up with on live was instancing raid content. The only actual other good solution that has ever been proposed was raid tokens, but that still leaves you a lot of room for sniping and interference from trains and general douchebaggery.

slappytwotoes
10-26-2015, 05:46 PM
This is so 2010.

This used to be server ruleset way back when. It was a nightmare of poopsocking and Rogean hates few things more than poopsocking. This won't happen.

Besides its harder for staff than a yellow FTE message.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 05:48 PM
Not true, FIF was definitely a (edit: player rule) rule in 2010. You'd need 15 players in the vicinity of the spawn.

I remember being in DA in Fear hanging out near CT's spawn with 15 members which guaranteed we had first crack at CT.

Ahh. I had only just started playing in 2010.

But I'm not looking for a player-base solution. I'm looking for a staff-enforced solution.

Nibblewitz
10-26-2015, 06:13 PM
This is thread #5990376306836 proposing a "better system."

Save your breath.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 06:28 PM
But how do you prove a leapfrog? More frapsquest and petitionquest? It's not a change for the better.



The only thing you're proposing here is to change the rule that they're breaking. You haven't proposed anything to keep them from breaking it. It certainly won't make things any easier on the staff.



The only thing that has ever helped to alleviate the "silliness" (your words) on this server was the class system with the class R lockouts. Still, class C was allowed to shit all over each other at will on their own days. But they at least chose to raid that way.



You still haven't defined what a capable force is in any satisfactory manner. I asked if you were going to assign values to each target, and you actually dodged the question. Your original suggestion would only allow the number to go up and would never address over-gearing the encounters.

Also, what do you do about zones where multiple forces can raid concurrently (NTOV). Is only one guild allowed in the whole zone? Alternatively, what do you do now about guilds who just fill zones with AFK bodies so that they have the right to mobs when they spawn and nobody else does?

You really need to take this one back to the drawing board. And then throw that drawing board into a chipper. And then burn the remnants. And then douse the ashes with acid. It's that bad of an idea.

Like I said before, the best solution they could come up with on live was instancing raid content. The only actual other good solution that has ever been proposed was raid tokens, but that still leaves you a lot of room for sniping and interference from trains and general douchebaggery.


I actually really like a rotation. And I was a HUGE advocate for instancing on the TLP. Not sure I think instancing is right for this server (classic and all), but I would absolutely play on a server of P99 quality with instancing.

Proving someone has broken the rule would be pretty easy. Guild A claims Target A. Guild B kills Target A. Guild B has broken the rule. The proof would come when Guild A is in the zone, does a /who, sees that they're the only ones there, and claims the target. When guild B rolls in, guild A will tell guild B that they have claimed the target and they take screen shots.

The only thing going to keep a guild from breaking a rule is staff enforcement. Not sure what else there is to be said here. Of course staff would have to adopt and agree to enforce this rule.

This is where your post starts to get good. My suggestion was for a simple average of the last 5 or so successful kills in order to claim a target. You point out, correctly, that if you roll this over every time, this will lead to an increasing number of people required to claim a target. Awesome! This is what I'm looking for. 14 seems a bit low. 50 seems a bit high. 24? I don't really know what this number should be. Should it be different for each target? I don't really know. What do you guys think?

As far as where other guilds are allowed to be. I don't think there's any reason to say that claiming a target means no other guild can be in the zone. If guilds want to sock a zone and claim a specific target, that's fine. Let them. But If rampage is socking NToV and BDA rolls in, BDA would be able to force Rampage to pick which target they're claiming, and BDA could then pick its own from the remaining targets in window. And then Taken could come in and claim another. And forsaken could claim another. And there'd be no reason for any of these guilds to train each other, because they would be under no pressure to kill the second their target spawns. They would kill the couple of trash between them and the target and then pull the target at their leisure.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 06:29 PM
This is thread #5990376306836 proposing a "better system."

Save your breath.

I know but I was bored.

Pokesan
10-26-2015, 06:34 PM
pardon me for not reading these long posts - did you propose a limit as to how far in advance FiF could be asserted?

maestrom
10-26-2015, 06:43 PM
pardon me for not reading these long posts - did you propose a limit as to how far in advance FiF could be asserted?

I don't, for a few reasons.

First: With variance the way it is, its impossible to know exactly when a target will pop, so saying "No claims can be made more than 6 hours before a target spawns" is ripe for lawyering. Can a guild re-claim every 30 minutes?

Second: Having a "No socking more than 2 hours before a target goes in window" will mean that people will just show up 2.01 hours before a target goes in window and lawyer at each other over who has the real claim. This is better than training, but it doesn't really help answer the question of who owns the claim.

Third: There are so many targets available, if guild A wants to sock Statue (and AoW) for 24 hours to make sure they get it, they will miss out on every other spawn in the game that spawns that day. All of Velious, all of Kunark. I don't think they'll do that.

Samoht
10-26-2015, 11:19 PM
Proving someone has broken the rule would be pretty easy. Guild A claims Target A. Guild B kills Target A. Guild B has broken the rule. The proof would come when Guild A is in the zone, does a /who, sees that they're the only ones there, and claims the target. When guild B rolls in, guild A will tell guild B that they have claimed the target and they take screen shots.

How do they actually prove which one was there first? This requires more frapsquest and petitionquest as before. This is not a change for the better.

maestrom
10-26-2015, 11:32 PM
How do they actually prove which one was there first? This requires more frapsquest and petitionquest as before. This is not a change for the better.

I guess I'm making a couple of assumptions.

My first assumption is that it will rarely be a close call as to who actually got in the zone first. I don't imagine it will happen often that two guilds will be sitting at IZ spamming /who and they're actually neck and neck.

If the threshold is set at 24, its really unlikely that 1 guild will get to 24 with the other guild at 23. If it does happen, and the second guild really does feel like they won, they can petition and they can submit screen shots/fraps/GMs can check logs.

I imagine that 99% of cases, 1 guild will say "TOV has 5 targets in window, guild B is there and has claimed X, we can claim Y or Z." And that's how it'll work. If guild B zones in, sees that guild A has 40 people in the zone and petitions anyways, the staff is free to take action for frivolous posts.

Sirken said in his stream that frequently these guilds document the hell out of their raids through fraps and SS and when confronted with fraps they usually back off.

Edit: By "rarely be a close call" I mean it will be rare that one party thinks it legitimately won and didn't. Most of the time, it will be clear to the parties involved who actually won, and if they want to petition, it will be with knowledge that they didn't actually win the race.

Pokesan
10-26-2015, 11:43 PM
why wouldn't every guild try to FiF the sock for vulak?

maestrom
10-26-2015, 11:56 PM
why wouldn't every guild try to FiF the sock for vulak?

Because if Vulak is in window only 1 guild will kill him. If its a guild that has done vulak a dozen times, it's virtually assured of victory. Socking it would be a waste of time for the other guilds and they would lose the ability to claim other targets elsewhere in the game.

Vulak presents other problems though, because he's effectively a triggered spawn. For this reason it might be best to adjust and make Vulak FTE, or make the "hands off" window, where a guild gets a free unmolested shot at a target, only 30 minutes in ToV.

jcr4990
10-27-2015, 03:47 AM
Know what'd be a better system? Every mob only spawning on sim repops that happen regularly. Get rid of tracking get rid of variance get rid of poopsocking. Every dragon/raid mob in the game spawns on a random schedule of sim repops once a week or so. It's been suggested many times by many different people and has very little downside and many upsides. Have no idea why it hasn't been done or at least tried.

As far as raiding on P99 goes. Sim repops are just about as fun as it gets imo. Every guild racing around and trying to strategize on what target to go for and try to figure out what other guilds are doing what so you know where to go next. Big guilds can't monopolize everything when it all spawns at the same time so the smaller guilds get to do stuff too. Only potential downside I can see is if the repop happens at a bad time and you happen to be working all day or have other RL obligations and you basically miss all the good raids for a week. I can see that part sucking but I still think overall it'd be better than what we have now.

am0n
10-27-2015, 07:11 AM
The rule says a guild or alliance can claim ONE target. The idea is to force guilds to only claim one target at a time. If a guild is claiming tormax, they cannot also claim Trak.

The whole point of this is to attach a cost to raiding for top guilds. A guild could not disengage from kael when Sev pops, go kill sev, and then come back and expect to have a shot at Tormax. They would have to decide that they want to give up their shot at Tormax in order to kill Sev.

Yes, and I understand what you are saying. What I am saying, though, is guilds will go bipolar on what they are camping to attempt to circumvent your idea. They'll change which spawn they are camping on the fly in an attempt to hold multiple spawns at once.

When you suggested this in another thread I said that you'd need substantial GM enforcement. This is exactly why. Without it, you either have some of the larger guilds that can field multiple groups attempting to cheat the system, or you end up with other guilds calling them on their shit and everything evolving into chaos as they all just fight for spawns.

I like your idea, or any idea that helps to give smaller guilds the chance at something, but many of the raiders in this community are toxic as hell and will do whatever is necessary to get pixels. The only way to curb that is with GM enforcement, and given they aren't interested in FiF and the fact that they have, at best, a skeleton crew, you won't see that enforcement.

maestrom
10-27-2015, 08:14 AM
Yes, and I understand what you are saying. What I am saying, though, is guilds will go bipolar on what they are camping to attempt to circumvent your idea. They'll change which spawn they are camping on the fly in an attempt to hold multiple spawns at once.

When you suggested this in another thread I said that you'd need substantial GM enforcement. This is exactly why. Without it, you either have some of the larger guilds that can field multiple groups attempting to cheat the system, or you end up with other guilds calling them on their shit and everything evolving into chaos as they all just fight for spawns.

I like your idea, or any idea that helps to give smaller guilds the chance at something, but many of the raiders in this community are toxic as hell and will do whatever is necessary to get pixels. The only way to curb that is with GM enforcement, and given they aren't interested in FiF and the fact that they have, at best, a skeleton crew, you won't see that enforcement.

Guilds won't be able to change their targets on the fly--pressure from other guilds won't let them.

If Tormax and Statue are in window, guild A rolls into Kael. Without anyone in the zone, they are free to pick whichever they choose, and are free to switch back and forth if they want. Guild B shows up. At this point guild A will no longer be able to choose. They will have to pick one, and the moment they do then guild B will immediately pick the other target. Part of the rule is that you MUST communicate clearly to both the zone and to anyone who asks what your claim is. If your guild doesn't shout to the zone that you're claiming a target (or changing a target), or if you as a guild ignore the repeated requests from another guild in the zone to state your claim, then you don't have a claim. I don't imagine this situation will happen much.

The scenario I think you're talking about is as follows

Guild A has 40 people in Kael and both Tormax and Statue are in window. Guild A wants both. Guild B rolls into Kael with 40 people and asks guild A what they're doing. Guild A tries to ignore guild B as long as possible so it can claim whichever target pops first.

In this situation, Guild B would be able to say "Tormax for Guild B." fraps and screenshot it. If Guild A wants to say "No we had tormax" then Guild B would just say "Statue for Guild B", and Guild A would have admitted they have no claim to Statue. No GM's necessary.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see what one guild would do in the above scenario that would require a GM. What do people think guilds will do that will require GM intervention. I know what they do now. They train the fuck out of each other because you get 10 pullers with a billion trains all going after the same targets and guilds do stuff like open doors so they can try to get a concession.

@troll. I love the idea of sim repops. Especially with 4-5 guilds in ToV, it will force all top guilds into ToV the minute the ground shakes and will let smaller guilds take Kunark/Lodi.

Expediency
10-27-2015, 08:34 AM
I love p99 and the only complaint I have with it is the raiding. Any change that resulted in classic raids at least once in a while would be better than what we have now. Constantly camping for FTE and skipping everything/training it away is awful and the only people who want it are those who care more about getting the items than having fun getting them. Right now sky is the only real target where you can crawl through the content like the game intended

trite
10-27-2015, 09:31 AM
I love p99 and the only complaint I have with it is the raiding. Any change that resulted in classic raids at least once in a while would be better than what we have now. Constantly camping for FTE and skipping everything/training it away is awful and the only people who want it are those who care more about getting the items than having fun getting them. Right now sky is the only real target where you can crawl through the content like the game intended

I'm pretty sure you can skip through the content on sky with a keyed necromancer....cost of corpse summoning an entire raid is much cheaper than the plat big guilds spend per raid on recharges in the velious era....

Duncon
10-27-2015, 11:57 AM
Know what'd be a better system? Every mob only spawning on sim repops that happen regularly. Get rid of tracking get rid of variance get rid of poopsocking. Every dragon/raid mob in the game spawns on a random schedule of sim repops once a week or so. It's been suggested many times by many different people and has very little downside and many upsides. Have no idea why it hasn't been done or at least tried.

As far as raiding on P99 goes. Sim repops are just about as fun as it gets imo. Every guild racing around and trying to strategize on what target to go for and try to figure out what other guilds are doing what so you know where to go next. Big guilds can't monopolize everything when it all spawns at the same time so the smaller guilds get to do stuff too. Only potential downside I can see is if the repop happens at a bad time and you happen to be working all day or have other RL obligations and you basically miss all the good raids for a week. I can see that part sucking but I still think overall it'd be better than what we have now.

I don't raid, but this sounds cool.

Vallanor
10-27-2015, 12:16 PM
I'm pretty sure you can skip through the content on sky with a keyed necromancer....cost of corpse summoning an entire raid is much cheaper than the plat big guilds spend per raid on recharges in the velious era....

I think the point is that you don't have three other guilds breathing down your neck training everything in sight grasping for FTE in Sky. You can crawl from bottom to top if you really want to.

Granted, if there were a high-value target with variance dropping NToV style loot on Isle 8, there would be all kinds of shenanigans up there every week, so it's more due to how the zone is set than with anything else.

Sadre Spinegnawer
10-27-2015, 12:25 PM
...This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target....

This would just turn into a diff version of FTE. As it stands FTE involves mobilizing and, as soon as you can get and keep a FTE, you launch the attack.

FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?

5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock

6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

Way too many problems. Rules upon rules upon rules.

But I do think Velious dragons need to be leashed.

maestrom
10-27-2015, 01:01 PM
This would just turn into a diff version of FTE. As it stands FTE involves mobilizing and, as soon as you can get and keep a FTE, you launch the attack.

FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

I thought about this--tieing the definition of raid force to specific targets. It might be best to handle it by groups. Kunark and lower targets need 24. Velious-era mobs take something more. 48?


2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

There would be no "window" for when you can no longer bring people into a raid. The intent of this rule isn't to force guilds to take down targets with fewer people. The intent of the rule is to allow guilds to lock in ONE target at a time as theirs so they don't have to worry about trainfests and FTE sniping.


3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

I thought about this, but since people can't two-box I don't see a reason why we need to worry about who is actually sitting there. If the guild has claimed 1 target, then they can't claim another target. They can go FTE unclaimed targets or farm other loot/group content. But I imagine the players who get left socking would get grumpy and either get their guild to give up the sock or cycle people around. No reason to say that it has to stay this 24 people.


4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?


This has given me some trouble. It could either be handled with a "-5" rule. Or a timer. Once claimed, you have an allowance of 5 raiders. If you lose 5 raiders (such as going from 24-5= 19 raiders) then you lose the claim. Another solution is as follows. Guild A claims target. Guild B zones in. Guild A loses 5 people and drops below the raid force threshold. Guild B can inform Guild A that their timer has started and they have X minutes to get back up to 24 or they lose their claim.

I am sympathetic to a rule that says if your raid has some lag and drops below "raid force" that you lose your claim automatically, but that might be easiest to enforce. I don't expect it will happen that often though.


5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock


The rule does not discuss windows. I imagine claims won't go in on targets that aren't in window. But if a guild really really wants to claim Tormax even though he won't be in window for 3 more days, then i supposed they're free to sock Tormax all week. I imagine this won't happen, because...


6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

No. The rule says you get ONE claim per guild/alliance at a time. If guild A plants its raid force at and claims Tormax, it cannot put another raid force at Sontalak and claim him. One claim per guild/alliance.

Man0warr
10-27-2015, 01:03 PM
Know what'd be a better system? Every mob only spawning on sim repops that happen regularly. Get rid of tracking get rid of variance get rid of poopsocking. Every dragon/raid mob in the game spawns on a random schedule of sim repops once a week or so. It's been suggested many times by many different people and has very little downside and many upsides. Have no idea why it hasn't been done or at least tried.

As far as raiding on P99 goes. Sim repops are just about as fun as it gets imo. Every guild racing around and trying to strategize on what target to go for and try to figure out what other guilds are doing what so you know where to go next. Big guilds can't monopolize everything when it all spawns at the same time so the smaller guilds get to do stuff too. Only potential downside I can see is if the repop happens at a bad time and you happen to be working all day or have other RL obligations and you basically miss all the good raids for a week. I can see that part sucking but I still think overall it'd be better than what we have now.

That's the best solution, and it's been suggested multitudes of times to Rogean/Sirken/Nilbog. For whatever reason they don't want to do it.

Expediency
10-28-2015, 09:02 AM
FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?

5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock

6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

Way too many problems. Rules upon rules upon rules.

But I do think Velious dragons need to be leashed.

These seem like easy questions.

1. They only get to declare one force. Any size. Small minimum, say 10
2. Absolutely, players can come and go. Just requires the minimum to be present, openly claiming intent to clear to a target and kill it.
3. The idea of "force" is not specific to classes. You have the right to kill a mob with your force unimpeded, and you can have as many or as few of whatever you want. And they can be anywhere in the zone waiting.
4. There would need to be a cutoff, such as two hours after spawn before it becomes fair game. If you have the minimum and someone goes LD that is their problem. Small issues like that are where lawyerquesting gets a foothold and doesnt let go. IF someone claims a camp, has only 10 people in their guild, and one of them goes LD just give them a few minutes to get the person back online.

5. Legit question, I would say if two guilds want to contest the same thing, should be determined by officers /randoming out of 1000 in a public area before the mob spawns or any force has been set up, with no guild being able to claim FiF on the same target multiple times in a row.
6. Absolutely not, at least not in multiple zones. You get one force, no matter the size. Claim it wisely.

maestrom
10-28-2015, 09:48 AM
5. Legit question, I would say if two guilds want to contest the same thing, should be determined by officers /randoming out of 1000 in a public area before the mob spawns or any force has been set up, with no guild being able to claim FiF on the same target multiple times in a row.


You're spot on except for this.

The rule says nothing about targets being in window. Guilds are free to sock targets as long as they want. They're gonna sock anyways, I say make socking a 100% shot at the target.

If Target A has a 16 hour window, and that window starts in 6 hours. Your guild is free, if it wants to, to roll its raid force into the zone and claim the fuck out of that target. The point of the rule is to give smaller guilds a tool that they can use to ensure they get a shot at targets they want, be they epic encounters, other kunark targets, or lower priority/easier Velious targets.

Big dog guilds will still get the vast majority of the pixels, but a small but determined force of adventurers will have a way of saying "Yes. Saturday we get Gorenaire, get your bodies ready", even if that means Saturday starts on Friday night.

Shit's classic.

Expediency
10-28-2015, 10:02 AM
You're spot on except for this.

The rule says nothing about targets being in window. Guilds are free to sock targets as long as they want. They're gonna sock anyways, I say make socking a 100% shot at the target.

If Target A has a 16 hour window, and that window starts in 6 hours. Your guild is free, if it wants to, to roll its raid force into the zone and claim the fuck out of that target. The point of the rule is to give smaller guilds a tool that they can use to ensure they get a shot at targets they want, be they epic encounters, other kunark targets, or lower priority/easier Velious targets.

Big dog guilds will still get the vast majority of the pixels, but a small but determined force of adventurers will have a way of saying "Yes. Saturday we get Gorenaire, get your bodies ready", even if that means Saturday starts on Friday night.

Shit's classic.

I'm down with this. And the longer you sock something to make sure you get it, the whole time you are removing your entire guild from other considerations. One guild can claim a force at trak for the next two weeks and bag a few kills, but they would be removing their ability to make any claim on any other target for that entire span. This also eliminates the awful byproduct of FTE: sitting at zone and not being able to exp in zone while your guild socks a target. There's no reason other than the FTE madness for why we cant hunt in a zone while a mob is in window. When VS is in window you have 2-4 guilds who have characters who cant hunt there and they might not even get the spawn. This eliminates both of those problems.

I think there will be times, such as after updates or server respawns where the server will have been empty and there will be situations where nobody has claimed a force and several groups are trying. We'd need a mechanism to settle that.

Vallanor
10-28-2015, 10:17 AM
I think there will be times, such as after updates or server respawns where the server will have been empty and there will be situations where nobody has claimed a force and several groups or trying. We'd need a mechanism to settle that.

I think existing FTE rules would just apply in that scenario. With everything up simultaneously, FTE actually works pretty well since you can always find an unengaged target somewhere. For any normal spawns that arent claimed, you'll still be looking at FTE races anyway. This only eliminates the FTE race for a target a guIld has determined is high priority.

Just for clarification, let's say a guild claims Trak and has 20 members hanging out in Seb. There's nothing stopping the remaining members of that guild from FTE'ing to their heart's content elsewhere as long as they also maintain a presence at Trak, correct?

I think FIF would be an interesting fix to some of the issues on the server, but it mostly benefits guilds like AG and hurts power-hitters that can currently tackle NToV, so I really don't see it going anywhere.

maestrom
10-28-2015, 10:18 AM
You touched on one of the additional benefits of fif. Second or third tier guilds looking for trak will set of their raid force at juggs (one guild at a time of course, because they will have claimed it). No insta-gibbing of trak, because these guilds will of course not be able to do trak without buffing and coordination, many of them will be their first shot at him on p99.

Expediency
10-28-2015, 10:34 AM
Just for clarification, let's say a guild claims Trak and has 20 members hanging out in Seb. There's nothing stopping the remaining members of that guild from FTE'ing to their heart's content elsewhere as long as they also maintain a presence at Trak, correct?


Any target not being claimed by a force should be open to normal FTE rules. I have been trying to count in my head how many forces this would result in, since one per guild is clearly the only way of keeping track of it. There are four guilds who can kill any contested target. (nobody is gonna sock something only rampage can kill). There are another 10-15 guilds with sufficient strength to kill almost any target on the server provided they can gather and clear the area to the boss, and then some smaller guilds who could sock a target that they'd never get otherwise.

The people who run this sever go to great lengths to make this a classic experience, even removing things like buff timers when they find out how to do that. Why cant we as a community take at least some basic steps to try to bring some classic raids back? You cant actually experience any of the raid content here. The only classic style raids I've ever seen on this server are weekly sky raids (since uncontested) and the open vox raid a few months back. In fact, a "real" raid is so rare that the devs spawned vox twice because someone felt sorry for us.

maestrom
10-28-2015, 10:36 AM
Just for clarification, let's say a guild claims Trak and has 20 members hanging out in Seb. There's nothing stopping the remaining members of that guild from FTE'ing to their heart's content elsewhere as long as they also maintain a presence at Trak, correct?


Correct.

This is why I'm wary of setting the raid force threshold too low. Not because I don't want AG to suffer. But because I want claiming a target to have real implications for the guild and to offer real opportunities to other guilds. It might be so, if put in place, that guilds don't as a practical matter go out and take tons of other targets while leaving their claim crew behind. But I suppose if the raid thresholds are low across the board, then it would be easier for smaller guilds to claim targets, and there would be fewer unclaimed targets to contest.

Not gonna edit out the stream of consciousness. Yes, you are correct.

teija
10-28-2015, 10:49 PM
This thread is a complete waste of time I am sry to tell you all. Anything thats going to require more rules/GM enforcement/frapsquest/petitionquest will never be implemented.

Sadre Spinegnawer
10-28-2015, 10:58 PM
This thread is a complete waste of time I am sry to tell you all. Anything thats going to require more rules/GM enforcement/frapsquest/petitionquest will never be implemented.

Just go with it. Use the power of imagination. The magic of "what if?" is awesome!
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1392/5163249110_00028c94df_b.jpg

edit: leash Velious dragons plz

maestrom
10-28-2015, 11:58 PM
This thread is a complete waste of time I am sry to tell you all. Anything thats going to require more rules/GM enforcement/frapsquest/petitionquest will never be implemented.

Just curious. What specific scenarios are you imagining that will make FIF require more petition/GM involvement than the current system?

I imagine that in the short run, yes. More staff will need to be involved as guilds learn to adjust to a new system. But in the long run there should be nothing to petition in most cases.