Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:12 PM
eqholmes eqholmes is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 136
Default

On luclin it was pretty much the same way Snifs described it. Although I will say most guild on our server actually respected each other enough that the guild that wasn’t ready buff/mana/etc they would sit back and hope for a wipe so that they could pull the mob at whatever % he was down to.

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 50 Ranger DA
  #32  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:14 PM
falderon_MT falderon_MT is offline
Large Bat


Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Default Leapfrogging

I am seeing alot of what if's being posted....this is not rocket science imo.

The first guild with a FULL raid force in the zone should have the rights to the mob in question...just because 5 guys have camped it for 3 days doesn't mean squat. The Raid force that engages the mob first should have full rights...not some other 10 man team who has been farming trash imo.
  #33  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:22 PM
Dukat Dukat is offline
Orc

Dukat's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Don't confuse people now. Theres leapfrogging, and theres KS'ing. KS'ing is actually attacking a mob after another guild ALREADY engaged it and out dps'ing them to get the kill. Leapfrogging is running past a guild that has been preparing to kill the mob / did the trash clearing to a mob to engage the mob first.
Clearing the trash is a minor hurdle on the way to the raid target. I see no objective merit to clearing the trash first. The only thing that should count is how much DPS you can bring to the raid target itself. Whether you choose to clear the trash first, or attempt an interception is a matter of raid strategy.
  #34  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:23 PM
Abacab2 Abacab2 is offline
Banned


Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4
Default

First force regardless if it was 10 or if it was 72 to actually engage a mob was the guild that claimed the mob, upon engage other guilds could heckle on the sidelines and delay the other guild into a wipe.
  #35  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:52 PM
Nightblade Nightblade is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Default

On Quellious, there was a community ruling that anyone who showed activity to take down a mob, had the intent, and the forces able to do so, claimed it (like moving to clear trash to safely pull it, etc etc). The vast majority of the player base would abide by it, and even then, if a group was missing 2-3 people that would be there for an average 'take down attempt', an incoming group would standby and wait to see if guild A killed it, wiped, or didn't have the intent of killing it.

Then again, most of Quellious was also nice enough to talk to each other about the intent of a raid in a zone, and see to some sort of agreement. When I was working on my rogue's epic, our guild zoned into Kedge at the same time as another, but instead of racing to the end for the robe I needed and hoped we killed him first, our guilds joined forces to kill him. They had a bard that needed the spine, I needed the robe. A win for all sides.

Would that we could live in a more perfect world, eh?
__________________
Treason - Teir'Dal Shadowknight
  #36  
Old 07-30-2010, 04:57 PM
Phallax Phallax is offline
Fire Giant

Phallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightblade [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
On Quellious, there was a community ruling that anyone who showed activity to take down a mob, had the intent, and the forces able to do so, claimed it (like moving to clear trash to safely pull it, etc etc). The vast majority of the player base would abide by it, and even then, if a group was missing 2-3 people that would be there for an average 'take down attempt', an incoming group would standby and wait to see if guild A killed it, wiped, or didn't have the intent of killing it.

Then again, most of Quellious was also nice enough to talk to each other about the intent of a raid in a zone, and see to some sort of agreement. When I was working on my rogue's epic, our guild zoned into Kedge at the same time as another, but instead of racing to the end for the robe I needed and hoped we killed him first, our guilds joined forces to kill him. They had a bard that needed the spine, I needed the robe. A win for all sides.

Would that we could live in a more perfect world, eh?
This is how Tunare was for the most part. It sounds like alot of you grew up on very immature and greedy servers. Tunare, just had a mutual unwritten law, first to be in zone clearing with a force had claim, simple as that. I only recall 1 leapfrog moment with Ssra Emp and a GM just came and checked logs of who tagged the first trash to lay claim.
__________________
Phallax [55 Luminary]
Phallax [51 Mystic]
Jeebs [40 Ranger]
  #37  
Old 07-30-2010, 05:06 PM
Bubbles Bubbles is offline
Fire Giant

Bubbles's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 965
Default

lol we're barely to page 4, and Rogean's already sorry he asked, I bet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
  #38  
Old 07-30-2010, 05:08 PM
yaaaflow yaaaflow is offline
Sarnak

yaaaflow's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 299
Default

My raid solution that totally won't happen but would be fun: add a /raid tag for people, and when it is on if a raid mob spawns everyone with that tag is ported to a random zone and they can mobilize from there ;p Or just have raid mobs port out anyone in the zone or connecting zones upon spawn.
  #39  
Old 07-30-2010, 05:12 PM
Skope Skope is offline
Banned


Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: place
Posts: 767
Default

There wasn't much leapfrogging on Prexus, it was always quite civil. But here I've seen leapfrogging from guilds just to clear the yard trash with no targets up at all. It can get quite nasty and I don't honestly understand it at all...

I'd imagine it can be resolved by a "first to zone" or a "first to engage yard trash" rule, but that just plays into the poopsocking we're essentially trying to solve, so I'm not sure how effective that would really be. The problem is that it's very hard to prove any of that, regardless of the zone. It would be easier in hate, for example, but doing so in fear would be nearly impossible with the variety of camp locations people tend to sit on.

The best way to do it would be in having rules structured to prevent that sort of thing from occurring in the first place. Training alone can be hard enough to prove due to wall and social aggro, but trying to prove leapfrogging would be even more difficult.
  #40  
Old 07-30-2010, 05:15 PM
xorbier xorbier is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumamgar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I never had GMs enforce any sort of leapfrogging rules for single named (ie: trash clearing in Fear or clearing down to the Royals in Chardok, etc). There were only two cases on EMarr where there were leapfrogging standards that were upheld by GMs: NToV in Velious and Vex Thal in Luclin. In both cases there was a "key mob" that once killed was considered claim to the rest of the wing/zone. For NToV it was Aary, and for VT it was Blob 1.

To avoid getting leapfrogged on single mobs guilds developed strategies to minimize the risk of being leapfrogged. For example, instead of clearing down to the royals, a common tactic was to pull them to the zoneline. Other tactics involved training away the trash so that the raid could move in to the main target without clearing, etc.
It was like this on my server too. You learned tactics to reduce leapfrogging and mobilizing quickly was key. Sometimes it was a fun race to the target!
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.