Leapfrogging

[Jeice]

There was zero enforcement, guilds would fight over the mobs and try to get there first. Leapfroging was sometimes part of Classic and thats something people knew and expected. Normally though if a guild was in doing something and another guild showed up they would sit and wait. If the guild wiped they would go steal the kill for obvious reasons, sometimes help the wiped guild do a CR... There was no rule on "saving" a target or requiring players to camp in a zone with 15 players for 48 hours so that they can be guaranteed the boss. I have yet to raid on P99, but from the rules I see and how certain things are dealt with I have to say its not close to the feel of playing real Classic. The whole thing of raiding back then was argueing with other guilds, making friendships with some and having pacts. The GM's did not play favorites or ban people for silly things, they let the kids play.

[Anaiyah]

I think the main point is getting a bit lost here. The methods of working out kills was usually dynamic. GMs here should not aim to provide a static ruleset for these situations, they should realize that an equilibrium will emerge naturally so long as players have freedom.

EQ was never pretty and nice. Servers were not havens of cooperation between high end guilds, however, mutual agreements ALWAYS emerged naturally.

I find your example of leapfrogging to be pretty unrealistic. Only a guild full of utter retards (literally) is going to see another guild zone in and continue just clearing trash then take a med break at the boss. That never happened in live, so it shouldnt be an issue that you worry about. What would happen is they would stop clearing trash, and a standoff of who is going to be oom and be clearing trash would begin...of course followed by the guilds that arent full of retards coming to SOME kind of arrangement.

Player freedom and responsibility is the only thing gms need to worry about with raid rules, especially if this is an emulation of classic.

[Ravhin]

Indeed - I was a Guide in the classic/Kunark era, at which time only "kill stealing" was an enforceable offense. KSing defined only on a mob to mob basis, i.e. whichever player or group that engages a mob first has the right to kill it, and if another player/group engages after with the intent to KS that was against the rules.

This was almost always applied to exp situations and never raids for a few reasons. One, ability to verify. Typically we would get a petition from a group about some asshat KSing them, would go invis and sit around for a few minutes and see it actually happen, and then could do something. For a raid target it's a one time deal and we weren't going to sit around and watch guilds buff/ready to engage on the off chance that another guild was going to KS. Two, it was a per mob rule, so no concept of trash mobs. Ie it would have been technically legal for Guild A to clear giants leading up to Nag and then have Guild B engage, as long as Guild A hadn't actually agroed Nag when Guild B engaged.

Likely not the answer you were looking for, as I doubt the question was "what was the official GM policy?" but rather "what would be a good policy?"

rav

[mmiles8]

From my old Guide Handbook:

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints

When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

On PvP servers, where players can reach a solution to the contested spawn situation, the CS Representative does not need to require the players to share the spawn.

8.2.3.1 The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

[Dukat]

If you've been following the discussion then you probably know where I stand on this matter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we really need to get out of forum court and start playing this game the way it was meant to be played.

[Yoite]

We split into two parts. The main raid that cleared to the target, and the "bouncers" that PKed others as they entered the zone.

only time a leapfrog would occur is if guild b gathers enough force to overcome the bouncers at which point we would either train the trash on em and evac and go back to clearing or we would all get killed and lose our raid target.

good ole Tallon Zek

GMs never got invloved. in our guilds case, every group had a wiz or druid for evac. if we got trained while on a target we would all evac our groups and either start again or have an epic pvp fight at the entrance with the opposing guild.

[Frankee]

Yea, this is why i loved playing on PVP server. Had a problem? you could solve it yourself.

Personally i think that if any guild gets in there and can get the kill, they deserve the kill. If a guild is willing to camp out a spawn and can get the players there before anyone else to secure that camp spot / spawn then so be it.

If you can't do the same then I don't see why other players should let you have a chance.

I believe that even in worst case scenario, you have 3 guilds waiting in zone for the pop watching, whoever can mobilize first and get the kill should get it. I think it would be fun to have 3 guilds hittin on the mob just to see who ends up with the kill and loot.

For example, earlier on the server our group was camping MM tunnel area, guy spawned with Crested Mistmoore Shield, we wiped trying to pull him and when we got back there was a high level mage working through the tunnel (respawns popped on us when we pulled).

I sent him a tell and politely asked if we could have the spawn because we were there for 3h+ and wiped on him and he said sure and let us have it and just passed it by which was really nice of him. If he decided to take this mob, what could we really have done? sit there, bitch and whine? petition a GM?

Nothing gives us the right to that mob in our opinion, I actually expected him to take it but it doesn't hurt to ask!

I mean, yes it helps if people respect camps and the CC checks work great and everyone has an understanding of that kind of play style. If your a dick and just rob peoples camps all the time then the players will know and hopefully outcast you properly.

I'm more of a "hey, lets all work together and down this boss and share the loot with /random" if other guilds showed up and i was leading one of the parties there, but I think its dumb if you have a guild camping or "in queue" to kill the mob and a guild is sitting there ready to go and some kinda superficial player rule is holding the guild that is ready back from the kill.

Just my mentality from playing on PvP servers, maybe I'm a little jaded...

Thats my 2 cp anyway!

[Nizzarr]

I would go with what Mmiles8 posted.

If someone(see guild,alliances or whatever) contest a spawn, then it should go on rotation until both or all parties get one spawn. Subsequent spawns wouldnt be "randomed"

Example: IB and DA are in fear and CT spawns(which also brings dracoliche back up) Both guilds contest the spawns and random for dracoliche and ct. Whoever loses gets the next dracoliche and/or the next CT.

Next CT spawns and Remedy is there as well as whoever lost the first ct, they do the same shenanigans.

Contesting a spawn would need to be 20 poeple of the same guild, alliances or group. Probably same guild to avoid abuse of the rules.

You can contest a spawn until the mob is at 97% health.

Failure to comply with the contest rules, your guild is disbanded and all members banned for 10 days.

[Nizzarr]

It's practically a rotation between the guilds willing to show up for spawns. The time to contest most mob will be so low that not everyone will be able to mobilize 20 poeple to contest.

This effectively removes a bit of poopsocking

[Nightblade]

On Quellious, there was a community ruling that anyone who showed activity to take down a mob, had the intent, and the forces able to do so, claimed it (like moving to clear trash to safely pull it, etc etc). The vast majority of the player base would abide by it, and even then, if a group was missing 2-3 people that would be there for an average 'take down attempt', an incoming group would standby and wait to see if guild A killed it, wiped, or didn't have the intent of killing it.

Then again, most of Quellious was also nice enough to talk to each other about the intent of a raid in a zone, and see to some sort of agreement. When I was working on my rogue's epic, our guild zoned into Kedge at the same time as another, but instead of racing to the end for the robe I needed and hoped we killed him first, our guilds joined forces to kill him. They had a bard that needed the spine, I needed the robe. A win for all sides.

Would that we could live in a more perfect world, eh?