#91
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=12993 God help the guild that wants the technicalities of the server rules enforced on them..
__________________
| |||
|
#93
|
||||
|
Quote:
Transcendance had first 15, was clearing, and got first engage on draco. IB had second 15. FB had third. Trans was fighting Draco, it was getting close (a wipe may or may not have happened, uncertain), IB was waiting for them to finish one way or another when FB came in, got the kill, looted and scooted. FB had a few members suspended (might've been salty? and someone, uncertain, you'd hafta ask them) and the loot was removed. A few weeks back, DA / IB were contesting a CT. IB called 50 minutes? on the two golems. IB waited their 50 minutes and managed to get the 2 golems. IB let DA have draco as per rules. IB was finishing up the trash clear when DA ran in on CT, burnt him down, looted and scooted. Apparently CT summon was (is?) only summoning 1 mob every 3 seconds, instead of all at once, making his summon a joke (with 40 players on a 32k hp mob, anyway). DA had loot removed and a few members suspended (I believe Durison was one of them). A few quick examples for you Nilbog. On a side note: Is the CT summon fixed yet? he's simply not that dangerous in his current form. | |||
|
#94
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#95
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
| |||
|
#96
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
| ||||
|
#97
|
|||
|
Did anyone post the screenshot of Bumamgar's whole guild getting getting banned from SoD yet?
| ||
|
#98
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
[60 High Priest] Uuaellaen (Dark Elf)
[55 Conjurer] Uaellaen (Dark Elf) [24 Rogue] Uaellaenn (Dark Elf) *retired* | |||
|
#99
|
|||
|
The player made rules were agreed on by the guilds who were present when they were made. That said, if another guild doesn't agree to them then that's completely fine. That's what the server rules are there for. I personally find it hard to believe that anyone in the raid scene today does not know about them, but you can also chalk that up to IB's fault I guess for assuming and not checking with WI.
As for today, it wasn't worth the shit-storm that would have ensued with pushing the issue so we just issued the normal warning. They killed it, grats to WI. The only real issue I took with today's happenings was if WI was abiding by the server rules then the raid should have been at the raid target, like the rules say...not at the ledge by fire giants. (Read below before killing me on that one). If a raiding guild on this server is going to be following the server rules I think that "at the raid target" needs to be more clearly defined. The entire reason these player rules were created was due to perceived gray areas in the server rule set, particularly with where is "the raid target"? Is it a designated pull spot? Is it on the spawn loc? I perceive it to be on the spawn loc, but others feel different, and thus you have a gray area. Once the camping BS started I thought the easiest thing to do would be to bail on the player rules and go with the server rules again, and I said as much. I don't think you can ever eliminate the possibility of camping in Everquest but at least if your not sitting at a safe spot it will actually require people to play the game more then once every 2-3 days. However, without that clarification as to where a raid has to be in order to lay claim, we are still stuck because every guild will have a different perception of where that is. Hopefully Nilbog's amendment will give some clarification to the entire situation that we are in. But in the meantime I see this as a potential problem unless every guild can agree on where you need to be if the player rules are going to not be followed. | ||
|
|
|