Leapfrogging

[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

[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.

[apollyon arali]

Not knowing how many guilds are able to kill cazic on 1999 etc...

I recall on my server only 2 guilds were able to do ubermob A...lets say Trak for example. They were able to work out a rotation. Guild A gets Trak, if they failed that night (agreed upon time to kill OR number of attempts)..then Guild B gets to kill. Then the next pop would be Guild B since Guild A failed thier attempt. Then Guild A again..etc etc.

yard trash was first come first serve in between spawns. Of course when Trak popped for example, then the guild who was up for that kill cleared trash too.

anyways..takes a little coopreration and agreements between guilds.

[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.

[Goobles]

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

What if a guild starts clearing trash with only a single group while it waits for the rest of it's members to show up?

I don't think you remember the beginning of this entire shit blizzard when it started with IB/Trans. Trans camped Naggy for 12 hours, and IB was in full force, heading to Naggy and Trans had like 3 groups. So we(IB) cleared all the trash, and they brought more reinforcements after we cleared the path. They got 3 attempts to bring Naggy down, since Wenai told us that if we engaged we would be banned.

----

Now, the best way to handle this bullshit is to say that a capable force must be present and active to claim a mob or a zone. That's how it was handled on SoD. Oh, and poopsocking sucks. 3day spawn timer with 12 hour variance would be a great idea. I know it's not the 'classic' 7 day spawn timer, but neither is the current spawn variance.

[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.

[Kelven]

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

On Rodcet Nife the first guild to engage trash (drakes on the way to NToV named, trash Giants toward King etc) had a player-implemented "right" to whichever named they so choose.

If Zone X had named A + B. Guilds 1, 2, 3 could be inside waiting for forces to gather, but if Guild 4 shows up and starts clearing, they get whichever target they so choose.

In the situation where we saw camped mages for CoH, this same "rule" stayed true. GM's did get involved, unsure how frequently, and afaik the guild who best argued that it was the first to start clearing, was allowed to stay.

Azeth's statement is right on the nose.

Whoever starts clearing to the boss first, has claim. If you wiped then the next in line got to engage ( after 100% regen of the boss - this was highly enforced. )

If you started clearing with less then 2 groups, you were usually leapfrogged and ignored. BUT the force leapfrogging you must be large enough to take out the boss with the numbers they had leapfrogged you with.

ex:
Guild-A has 12 members and starts clearing FG's , Guild-B runs up with 14 members and tries to leapfrog you. This wasn't acceptable as the raid forces were too similar in numbers, you would have to jump the small group with at least 18-20+ people.

This also didn't apply if the forces were 20-25 members vs 40. Just because you're bigger, if the 20-25 man force started clearing before you did, they have rights.

( rotation was only adopted after guilds would repeatedly camp the same spawn over and over for days, claiming the "we cleared first" rights. )

[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