Fighting dragons at ToV zonein

[kotton05]

The solution isn't simple when every pixel must be gobbled up to awakened who log in 90+ for more than one encounter. That's a lot of mouths to feed. Why would they risk losing pixels by changing anything?

its hard to take a discussion seriously when the supposed top guild is willing to KS ring 8 rolls (yes there is fraps and eisley wtf is wrong with you, how could you do that to snacks???!) along with taking an hour to kill koi when every week y'all kill it flawless without trains to ent... but when you won't get a shot at vulak it all the sudden it takes trains to ent and immense rule lawyering.

Gtfo out of here with the bush league manipulation that violates the current set of rules plz[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[arsenalpow]

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

Well all odds will favour all dragons being killed at the zone in. But that doesn't mean you should do it. So don't.

CSG didnt exist prior to or during the C/R/FFA era. It came into being as a result of your older guild + Div/bda breaking of the rotation. I won't deny it may have sped up the process of the CSG guilds climb into high end raiding, but that was an inevitability anyway.

And it's perfectly reasonable to make assumptions of a player based on their guild tag. Everyone under their respective guildtags is an ambassador for that guild. Your guilds actions is a reflection of you as a single entity, and vice versa. If it wasn't and you had integrity you'd leave.

So what happened to you Eratani, did the pixel lust grab hold and now it wont let go ?

CSG may not have existed in name, but those guilds working together to down raid targets (they each wanted their own slots but wanted to ally for kills as needed, essentially double / triple dipping) was one of the reasons the rotation broke in the first place, those relationships had existed for a very long time.

[Llodd]

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

CSG may not have existed in name, but those guilds working together to down raid targets (they each wanted their own slots but wanted to ally for kills as needed, essentially double / triple dipping) was one of the reasons the rotation broke in the first place, those relationships had existed for a very long time.

here we go again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[-Catherin-]

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

CSG may not have existed in name, but those guilds working together to down raid targets (they each wanted their own slots but wanted to ally for kills as needed, essentially double / triple dipping) was one of the reasons the rotation broke in the first place, those relationships had existed for a very long time.

^

This right here. It was going on for a very long time actually, and was one of the big reasons I requested to be removed from those FAP (lol) forums, and from any position of leadership in the raid scene in general. Anyone who had access to those discussions knows how absolutely rediculous the entire thing became. Literally officer RnF.

Things were being taken advantage of and the guilds that worked hard to get the entire agreement in place were pretty much getting walked all over. It's just another example of why we can't have nice things. With the wide spread of different mindsets and play styles in this game I stand by that there will never be an agreement among every guild that does not involve some sort of GM intervention. But I WOULD be happy if I was proven wrong on this one. I just think it's very unlikely.

A kudos to BDA, Divinity, and Taken for trying to deal with it as long as they did. I was not as patient [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ironically enough, the entire thing fell apart like 2 weeks after I withdrew [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] It's not always bullshit just because Chest said it!

If I had known that was going to happen I probably would have stuck around. Boy, some people would have hated that!

[arsenalpow]

They didn't want to be forced to ally and share a single rotation slot, yet here we are now. CSG still settling for whatever scraps A/A have decided to give them. In a year CSG will be no closer to a Vulak kill. Nice raid scene.

[Daldaen]

And thus why instances are better.

Just emulate instances here since we are beyond the timeline at this point. Throw a 4 hour respawn on all dragons and call it a day. Nerds are nerds and I'm sure the first week theyd contest every Dozekar and Eashen spawning every 4 hours. Eventually theyd burn out pick a few days a week to raid to get their pixel fill and the other days of the week casuals could crawl into NTOV to their liking.

[FatMice]

Originally Posted by kotton05 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The solution isn't simple when every pixel must be gobbled up to awakened who log in 90+ for more than one encounter. That's a lot of mouths to feed. Why would they risk losing pixels by changing anything?

its hard to take a discussion seriously when the supposed top guild is willing to KS ring 8 rolls (yes there is fraps and eisley wtf is wrong with you, how could you do that to snacks???!) along with taking an hour to kill koi when every week y'all kill it flawless without trains to ent... but when you won't get a shot at vulak it all the sudden it takes trains to ent and immense rule lawyering.

Gtfo out of here with the bush league manipulation that violates the current set of rules plz[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guess Rampage allying with them, giving them plat for raid recharges, showing them pull strategies, then merging with them, was all a terrible idea. Blame yourself and your core group of ex-Rampage leaders.

[RedXIII]

Raid Scene is perfect, all we need atm is clear rules for some content like CT, Vulak because player agreements doesnt work.

If you want instanced content and freepixels, phinny is that way --->

Everquest was never meant to be casual, thats what we had on Morell-Thule, two guilds fighting for everything everytime with clear rules. #classic.

Thanks Nilbog, Rogean, Sirken, Braknar and the whole p99 staff.

[Joyelle]

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

I am more open to anything than any other top guild leader has ever been on this server.

You sound like Cheeto Jesus

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[zanderklocke]

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

CSG may not have existed in name, but those guilds working together to down raid targets (they each wanted their own slots but wanted to ally for kills as needed, essentially double / triple dipping) was one of the reasons the rotation broke in the first place, those relationships had existed for a very long time.

Instances are a necessity to a fair and equitable raid scene in MMOs that avoids player complaints and CSR time; all MMO modern designers realize this. In Project 1999, problems will always emerge related to rotations. The problem with a single rotation slot rotation spanning all mobs in non-instanced EQ is that it doesn't make sense with the difference in difficulty of mobs and the unexpected variance of raid pops, as evidenced by the Kunark situation we had.

If a group of 3 guilds share a rotation slot on Gorenaire, should they have to share a rotation slot on Maestro? Alternatively, should they have to even be required to be on the rotation for Gorenaire if they don't want to be? A rotation in EQ is always going to be weird arbitrary comparisons rules such as if you can't kill "X" mob alone, you should not be allowed to kill "Y" mob alone. The people with more capable guilds will always want difficult gatekeeper mobs, as evidenced by the multiple revisions of the "mandated" new agreement to prevent other guilds from getting better targets.

That is the problem with how guilds could never agree on a rotation; there was a difference in opinion on how guilds should be "required" to participate in a rotation spanning multiple mobs. There is no way 9 or so guilds would have ever permanently agreed on anything because of this.

I always thought that rotations would make sense per mob, but that's because I'm a casual loser. What I thought would make sense is if you share a slot once on a mob with another guild, you have to always share that slot with the other guild. If you can kill a mob individually, you have to always kill that mob individually. However, obviously, people think guilds would break apart and "game" the system if rotation slots were established per mob as opposed to across the board of all mobs because many players don't believe guilds would not game this system by having break off guilds and only participating on mobs with the best loot. During the Class R rotation, maybe guilds gamed the system, maybe they didn't. I'm not sure, and this will always be a point of contention and debate.

Guilds will never permanently agree to a rotation that isn't staff mandated because players will find loopholes or ways to push back in the best interests of their size guild to get the most loot possible. People don't really care about sharing in a video game, and people tend to not play nice. It's a video game; it's not like reputation and kindness really matter anyway. The fact that people are still wall staring and FTE racing shows it's all about the loot or bragging rights.