Forced Rotation Isn't Classic

[Reiker]

I'm also Karsten, apparently.

[Deanob]

LOL never did I see a guild be so lazy and take the easy way out. Instead of competing like men, they just give up and revert to a rotation.

You stay classy Transcendence

[Allizia]

Where is Bubbles when you need her? This thread needs some Bunnies stat

[Gildiss Gram]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Dabamf]

I really, really really really like the idea of a 2 hour limit. Keeps things civil by avoiding trains and leapfrogging and 14 hour squats, but still requires speed, organization, and skill to kill the mob in the time allowed. And the best guild will still emerge the victor in the end, by losing less spawns to wipes and slow speed. And it also manages new raiding guilds better than either option. You shouldn't be able to hop in for your equal share of a raid mob if you haven't proven your ability to kill it. But you should have a reasonable chance of giving it a shot. A 2 hour limit gives you the chance to try it if you are dedicated (even 3+ tries if you are fast), but once you fail you are gonna have to wait for a while to try again, as it should be.

I say this, believe it or not, from the underdog position both here and in live. In live my guild was literally STALKED by the guild above us because we were biting at their heels. They would form impromptu raids the moment they saw us go anywhere, just to leapfrog us and deny us content. I hated them with every inch of my soul. And honestly it is a really lame tactic. In that case, it is NOT the best guild that is succeeding. They beat us simply because they had more experience on the content because they formed while I was still level 40 with my guild of 6. We had many GM interactions and a lot of drama. In one case they stole AoW 20 minutes after we spawned him with no GM punishment. In another case we got leapfrogged in NToV and the GM forced them to back off and give us our fair, and ultimately successful, shot at Aary.

There were a lot of cases where we competed for highly desired mobs and lost fair and square. I never was mad about this except at my guild for mobilizing so slowly. But there were also many cases where we got trained, stalked, leapfrogged, KSed, and fucked with in other ways that made our playing experience miserable and made my 16-year-old self want to murder their raid leader and jerk off on his corpse.

Ultimately, guilds don't feel shitty or slighted when they lose fair and square. At least they shouldn't. Guilds feel slighted when they get fucked with, trained, KSed, etc. That causes the drama. You won't ever see a flame post titled "soandso mobilized faster than us for the 10th time this is unfair!" The source of the drama here is because (1)raid mobs spawn at an EXACT time, and (2)the raid mobs in question have significant trash required to kill. Squatting for hours on a mob's spawn point is lame, I don't think anyone can deny that. It's a game of who has the most free time to completely waste, or who has the most people who can load EQ at work and not actually be there. But allowing the first to engage Naggy is also a bad idea, since then it just becomes a matter of "ok wait till the other guild pulls the last giants, then we train rokyl on them accidentally and engage naggy." Other raid mobs are easy to see a solution. In the case of King Tormax, for example, 2 guilds can set up on opposite sides of the zone and whoever can pull him first wins. That requires no agreement or rotation. With naggy, you're required to leapfrog each other.

Ultimately, the solution needs to prevent griefing, but still promote competition. The previous solution allowed both griefing (squatting raid mobs to artificially monopolize camps) and competition. The current solution prevents both griefing and competition. Both are poor options.

I think something in the area of a rotation with a 1-2 hour limit is the best idea. Leapfrogging and KSing and training should never lead to rewards, but artificially putting guilds of unequal ability on an equal footing with hard rotations is inherently anti-EQ.

And for the love of god, lets open Hate early so we don't have to rotate Fear trash. Rotating fear trash is so weak :/

P.S. Is adding a random component to the spawn time an option? It was added in later EQ, late Velious or in Luclin somewhere, but it was a fantastic addition that only led to INCREASED fairness and pure competition. It made raid mobs unexpected and thus rewarded those who could organize and mobilize the best.

[nilbog]

Guys.. you imply that this is what the GMs want and that we are punishing you on purpose. I had talks with both guildleaders stating, very clearly, that I didn't want GMs to have to manage this.

(Otto or Zyrek, do you mind if I post what I told you in our conversations? For reference sake, I want the truth known of what I said. Either approval will work because I said the same thing to both of you.)

Here is how I thought things should/would work. People show up, get their raid force ready.. first guild with large enough raid force for target at staging area gets first attempt. This is just how I thought it *should* work, but in the end, the players should mediate.

The term leap-frogging was also mentioned. My experiences with this were you leap-frogged on the WAY to the raid target, not KSed waiting players. By this mentality, you are asking the GMs to ignore petitions of killstealing and training? Because that's what is gonna happen. As soon as PVE becomes pvepvp, the petitions will come.. and cannot be ignored.

Here is a direct quote from Everquest policy about the inability to share. "Someone" said this sounds like an exp camp policy. To me, it sounds like any camp/raid situation. Since you guys are all-knowing about how things should be, maybe you can produce some of your own evidence?

Another player and I wish to hunt in the same area, but he doesn't want to share. Should I petition?
Before petitioning, you should be aware that no one group or player can "own" an area. In addition, the Play Nice Policy states that in such a situation, both parties must compromise with one another. If no resolution can be met, then you may petition for assistance as a last resort, and a member of the Customer Support Team will mandate a binding compromise to the disagreement. It is strongly suggested that the groups involved make every attempt to resolve the dispute without the involvement of a member of the Customer Support Team.

We had forced rotations on my live server.. because it was full of rude/leet da`kor, midnight sojourn, and an asian alliance of multi guilds. The leaders.. came together and decided how to manage their people. A /random 100 determined the order of kills, and guilds and even pick-up days were added in the rotation.

In the event a guild couldn't come to an agreement with another guild, things like rotations are put in place. As soon as there were PVE deaths related to guild v guild in a non-consensual setting, guilds were disbanded.

I want nothing more than just to work on content and listen to feedback. The point is to make it a classic server. You can use the rhetoric of "non-classic" all you want, but in the end, diplomacy with each other is the way to go. I think "competition" means showing up first in the best gear with the best players and consistently downing targets; not killstealing. On the flip-side, immediately coming to the GMs isn't the way to go either. Per the rules, "If no resolution can be met, then you may petition for assistance as a last resort."

I see both sides of the argument.. and I gave you guys over a week to work it out. It's easy to say, "non-classic, remove", but much harder to explain your points with facts and without emotion.

We are gonna be working with npc variance timers and a variety of other shit just to appease you.. but in the end, we're just babysitting. Maybe you should promote guild "ambassadors" that can talk with each other if your guildleaders cannot communicate.

I appreciate the suggestions for alternative solutions. They are always welcomed.

It only took 4 posts to derail the topic.

[Zithax]

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

Allizia asked me how we were handling the planes. Since you guys got there first to kill CT the planes were yours, Trans pulled out of the planes since it was your guys' night in the planes.

Seriously. The ones doing all the QQing... is you guys.

How hard is it to understand? WE DON'T WANT THAT. YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH TRANS BEFORE EVEN INFORMING IB OF THE "SITUATION" REGARDING PLANE OF FEAR. We WANT them to compete with us. We ENJOY having competition. We WANT them to try and fight for gear. We want EVERYONE to. You, and they, don't seem to understand this. And if you do, you are blatantly disregarding it for facts that haven't yet come to light. Perhaps Transcendence feels they could not properly handle the necessity to compete for spawns? Perhaps they don't feel up to the challenge of competing against competent players? Perhaps they are just fucking idiots?

I don't know what the question is, but I have the answer; and it is FFA.

[Nizzarr]

how about setting some easy rules?

-random spawn time + or - 24 hours(48 hours fluctuation) on 7 days spawn, + or - 12 hours on 3 days spawns. + or - 3 hours on 12 hours spawns.

-first guild to have 15 players present after a spawn has 120 minutes to engage, if wipe/unreadiness after 120 minute and other guild has 15 players ready then other guild can engage.

-15 players is debatable but it should be the bottom requirement to claim a shot.

These rules are easily enforceable, has less gm interraction and all in all will make poeple happy. If you want to kill shit, then be ready when it matters.

You can change these rules as you see fit, but the bottom line should be the same.

I want some spawn competition, thats what made EQ a great game. if you take this away you're taking away a big deal of what EQ was.

and excuse my french.

[Reiyz]

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

I don't know what the question is, but I have the answer; and it is FFA.

sums it up

[Cykubis]

I'll give you your bunny!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]