FE Raid Scene Proposal - Page 4

Unidus · #1 01-02-2014, 05:15 PM

Personally I just think they need to increase the spawn times of all raid mobs until Velious. This whole situation is cause by 2.5 years of Kunark with to many 60s. Spawn times increased to 4 spawns per what used to be 1 and no more variance. Only rules you need are you can only kill them 1 time out of 4 to prevent hoarding. Trak spawns you kill him then the next 3 spawns you stay the hell away and go kill something else.

This gives every guild 4 chances at getting a mob and if you can't get a kill then learn to play better. Once Velious is here then normalize the spawns and FTE with enough people to kill the mob get to kill it. If you wipe and another guild is there then they get the next attempt. Not that hard.

falkun · #2 01-02-2014, 05:15 PM

I said T1 was FFA during the second half of the month, which is true. My concern is T1 being able to lock-out T2 without repercussions.

@Fountree: That occurred due to hastily set raid rules established quickly in good faith when TMO was first suspended. If GMs had thought that system sustainable, they wouldn't be banning everyone from raiding midnight tonight (Jan 2). CSR realizes its not sustainable, hence the pressure now.

Funkutron5000 · #3 01-02-2014, 05:22 PM

Everything is FFA for the second half of the month. Kill 2 mobs out of the Trak/VS/CT/INNY/Outdoor dragon group in the FFA period in 2 months and then you get to rotate in on Trak/VS/CT/Inny. There is no lockout at all during the FFA period. It just asks you to put in a little bit of effort to earn your Rotation shots at those 4.

falkun · #4 01-02-2014, 05:26 PM

Doraf, preventing access is the problem for tier2 and the solution for tier1. Tier1 has always been about preventing access (see 200 Traks). Tier2 is about allowing access. Rogean's proposal allows tier1 guilds to prevent access to amongst each other and allowing tier2 guilds to open access amongst each other. The Divinity proposal allows the same, it just includes tier1 guilds in the open access first half of the month.

The FE proposal is BACK to preventing access. FE was heavily involved in Rogean proposal negotiations until it was revealed FE would get MORE mobs from the Divinity proposal. Now FE releases its own proposal that's based on the Divinity plan, but walls off (however low that wall is) raids. This feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

So Corova, why are you locking those 4 out now? You weren't locking them out under the Rogean plan, and then you moved to the Divinity plan when you realized it would offer you more mobs than the Rogean plan. Again, this feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

Funkutron5000 · #5 01-02-2014, 05:30 PM

Quote:

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

Doraf, preventing access is the problem for tier2 and the solution for tier1. Tier1 has always been about preventing access (see 200 Traks). Tier2 is about allowing access. Rogean's proposal allows tier1 guilds to prevent access to amongst each other and allowing tier2 guilds to open access amongst each other. The Divinity proposal allows the same, it just includes tier1 guilds in the open access first half of the month.

The FE proposal is BACK to preventing access. FE was heavily involved in Rogean proposal negotiations until it was revealed FE would get MORE mobs from the Divinity proposal. Now FE releases its own proposal that's based on the Divinity plan, but walls off (however low that wall is) raids. This feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

So Corova, why are you locking those 4 out now? You weren't locking them out under the Rogean plan, and then you moved to the Divinity plan when you realized it would offer you more mobs than the Rogean plan. Again, this feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

It's about us looking to make a compromise between both the GM proposal and the Divinity one.

We're looking for a way that both opens up more mobs to the server while also providing a bit of reward for giving a higher effort.

h0tr0d (shaere) · #6 01-02-2014, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funkutron5000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We're looking for a way that both opens up more mobs to the server while also providing a bit of reward for giving a higher effort.

This I wholeheartedly support and agree with. Well said.

falkun · #7 01-02-2014, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funkutron5000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's about us looking to make a compromise between both the GM proposal and the Divinity one.

We're looking for a way that both opens up more mobs to the server while also providing a bit of reward for giving a higher effort.

Except your plan isn't between the Rogean and Divinity plans. It looks more like this:
Full Rotation >> Divinity Plan > Rogean Plan > FE Plan >> Full FFA.

Your reward for higher effort is VP, which you get to keep as FFA and tier2 conceded it a while ago.

doraf · #8 01-02-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:

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

Doraf, preventing access is the problem for tier2 and the solution for tier1. Tier1 has always been about preventing access (see 200 Traks). Tier2 is about allowing access. Rogean's proposal allows tier1 guilds to prevent access to amongst each other and allowing tier2 guilds to open access amongst each other. The Divinity proposal allows the same, it just includes tier1 guilds in the open access first half of the month.

The FE proposal is BACK to preventing access. FE was heavily involved in Rogean proposal negotiations until it was revealed FE would get MORE mobs from the Divinity proposal. Now FE releases its own proposal that's based on the Divinity plan, but walls off (however low that wall is) raids. This feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

So Corova, why are you locking those 4 out now? You weren't locking them out under the Rogean plan, and then you moved to the Divinity plan when you realized it would offer you more mobs than the Rogean plan. Again, this feels like FE is backing away from the negotiating table.

So, this is Sloan as I think you know. My Tanthallas account has some issues, so Doraf let me use this in the mean time.

1. The access levels for all guilds are blown open with this proposal. I even said we were open to letting some of the FFA mobs which are necessary for the move from Tier one to Tier 2 be not allowed for Tier 1 guilds - this removes ANY CLAIM that Tier 1 guilds can lock anyone out, PERIOD. What this feels like is that YOU are simply bitching to bitch because there is very little to bitch about here.

2. We are not locking anything out. Noone will be able to lock Tier One from anyone - IF you have any CONSTRUCTIVE ways to give Tier Two openings to get to Tier One then put them forth - I have already said that we are perfectly willing to accept them. I understand that the past may have scarred you, but this is getting ridiculous.

doraf · #9 01-02-2014, 05:30 PM

That is completely fine, and that is the competitive dynamic of the system. IF every tier 2 guild did that (and they would need 2 FFA kills, not one - still manageable) then they could enter tier 1. And they would do this through COOPERATING - which is the goal.

I would point out, however, two things:

1. There would not be enough for EVERY Tier Two guild to do this - so the barriers to cooperating are in the end that the Tier Two guilds that brought about the collusion would have to accept that only a few of them would be able to move up and the others wouldnt. Like I said though, that is the beauty of it - there will never be a system where 100% cooperation yields 100% of what every party wants, our ability to cooperate should go hand in hand with our ability to make sacrifices as well;

2. The few guilds left in Tier Two would have alot of mobs to kill uncontested and Tier One would become over crowded; when Tier One gets to over 4 or 5 guilds, there is the potential that a guild may get nothing at all. I would think this would discourage people from staying in that Tier, or from leaving Tier Two in some instances.

However, the problem then is maintaining the status of Tier One. Not all the guilds in Tier One would be able to maintain that status - I would assume that at any point in time there could exist about 4 Tier One guilds without it getting too crazy - and hence many would be bumped down to tier two in two months...and it would proceed like this as long as we allow the system to exist. If the Tier Two guilds at that point wanted to do something similar, so be it. There are checks and balances on each side...cooperation will get you what you want, but it will not indefinitely put a lock on what you want. Cooperation will have to continue.

falkun · #10 01-02-2014, 05:36 PM

Also, how can you claim that effort is not as necessary as before? The only reason its been less effort is because TMO's been on raid suspension. Whenever this all gets figured out, TMO is back in the raiding game. The effort will get ramped right back up because none of these proposals address PNP issues. These proposals ignore PNP because its difficult to make hard and fast rules. These proposals have 1 playground where tier2 can police itself, and another where tier1 can police itself. The tiers are likely to police themselves very differently, and the Divinity and Rogean plans make that entirely possible. With this FE plan, especially the unaddressed loophole I've discussed at length, mob domination is rewarded. Why would any guild want to leave up any FFA mobs? Doing so would preclude any other guild from raiding for two weeks, so they could rotate with themselves. Having a plan founded on mob domination is where this plan falls apart. The Rogean and Divinity plans, and even the new Nilbog plan, are not based on mob domination.