First in Force.

[maestrom]

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]

Sounds impossible to enforce.

[maestrom]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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...

[Samoht]

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.

[am0n]

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.

[maestrom]

Originally Posted by am0n [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[am0n]

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

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]

Originally Posted by am0n [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.