First Aggro + 15

[Dawgrin]

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

[Phallax]

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

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

[Leokaiser]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will.

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed. As things stand, however, the rules actively encourage camping. I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

[Akame]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. .

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Collusion like that only works when certain conditions are met.

1. The parties colluding must have the means to lock out outside competition.

2. None of the colluding parties can believe they could be better off by cheating their partners.

Number 1 is impossible without the rotation or agreement being GM enforced, which is somewhere between "highly unlikely" and "never hapening" given previous dev statements on rotations.

Number 2 is a rare and elusive balance that never seems to last for long. Members of real life cartels are forever stabbing each other in the back and looking for advantages. A little research on OPEC or the Columbian drug trade should satisfy anyone's curiosity on that point. Even if that balance was ever achieved, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.

Bah, here I go discussing rotations in my own thread again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Bad Dumesh!

[Fahn]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Absolutely right, moreover a strong exclusive rotation will discourage other guilds from becoming raiders. As a leader of an up and coming guild this does not bode well for me.

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Any agreement between guilds should only between the guilds, no GM involved. And it would be up to the character of the players to allow for variations to the rule. Something I hope that could happen.

[Leokaiser]

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

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

[Fahn]

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

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

There are various solutions to these problems, it all depends on how the agreement is crafted. From only certain targets are on the menu. To having an open spot in the rotation to allow PuGs and so on. It all depends on the agreement. And again it would have to be NON-GM enforced, with is nigh impossible I understand.

But with that being said. I like this system for what it is, if the GMs decide to enforce anything, This would be the system. The ideas are refined as far as they are going to get in my opinion.

The only other GM action I could even fathom is if they forced the raiders to come to some sort of an agreement. And I just don't think they can / will for many many reasons.

[astarothel]

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

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed.

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?