Leapfrogging

[fastboy21]

on xev the player enforced rules for engagement were that:

1. once a force large enough to attack a named started clearing into a zone to get to a named they had the first shot at it. the second guild could remain in zone and follow behind and have a shot at the mob if the first guild wiped.

2. in some end-game zones there were gateway mobs that, once killed, gave you a shot at the next mobs for a certain period of time. For example, whichever guild killed aereyonar would have the rights to nameds in NTOV for 3 days.

It was easier on Xev because, being a split server, there were only a handful of real raid guilds capable of end game content. This changed around PoP and things predictably got more chaotic as more guilds entered into desired content.

***

The reason why things worked so well on Xev was that the players, especially the officers of the top two guilds, made arrangements with one another. It was not always pleasant, and there were occasional very nasty confrontations when players debated over who got to something first or whose turn it was at something. For the most part, however, the players kept things organized and came to recognized agreements on most major content.

The problem on p1999 is that, while we are following the normal timeline so far (that is, kunark/sky have not been opened), things here have progressed much farther than I recall them at this point on live classic. We have about a dozen guilds, maybe more, that can easily kill vox and naggy. There are more level 50s running around atm (and fewer lvl 1s) than there were at this point in classic.

I do remember classic content being a total total nitemare on Povar as far as guild competition. Maybe this is testament to the success of the GMs/Devs successfully recreating classic. From my recollection the only "fix" for any of this was the release of more raid content...that is to say, kunark.

Personally, I do not think that we need to release Kunark early (and perhaps it wouldn't be possible to do so if we wanted as the devs may not be ready), but I think the source of much frustration is the advanced progression of the server for where it is in the true classic timeline.

[Jaco]

On live everything was sum up into the "Play Nice Policy", you know the saying don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.

So when one guild was zoning into a plane no other guild would zone zone in to compete.
Same with a mob spawned, if one raid force is ready to engage, no one would rush them, but would wait till they either kill or fail.
Ofc after a failed attempt they would talk to 1st raid force to check wether they would give it another shot or if the 2nd raid force could go for it. Otherwise its killstealing, period.
It was basically the rules setup by the dominating guild(s) on my server, Mith Marr.

Spawn variance also encourages spawn camping and zerg guilds to sit 24/7 waiting for repop.. Please remove it, on live it was a set timer, so you don't "need" to camp, you come, if you are the first here you kill and if not you leave the place.
Just kick/port out/temp ban any guild that is camping an unspawned mob and won't see it anymore.

And please no rotation, if one guild is better than others at raiding then they deserve any kill, if others sit around semi afk or cant mobilize fast enough, then its too bad for them.

Oh yeah most importantly on live, GMs were actually enforcing the rules w/o any favoritism ... OOOPS did I say that ?!?!
If GMs were actually doing their duty, we wouldnt see such BS around. When people know they won't be punished because they have a GM friend or guildmate then they just act like idiots.
THIS is the problem you have to solve.

[mmiles8]

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The reason why things worked so well on Xev was that the players...made arrangements with one another...the players kept things organized and came to recognized agreements on most major content.

Fastboy21 could not be a better testimonial to using the GM's policies from live.

Xev was where I was a Guide. It had a kickass SMT that cared, was professional, and went by the book.

The important thing in preventing the constant whining is to stick them with /randoms when they can't play nice. It was an incredibly effective long-term solution on live once implemented. If the staff decides to implement that as a final and unchanging policy, I think they'll see how effective it becomes for making folks work things out on their own.

[Xzerion]

agreements are all well and good, most us of would agree thats whats best. But what happens when one guild breaks the agreement? Whats that accountability look like?

[azeth]

Accountability for breaking a pre established raid rule should mirror whatever punishment a KS warrants.

[Cyrano]

GMs rarely got involved on my server, usually only if there was a bug. Our server used a first to engage agreement but it was never explicitly written out in a rule set. There were plenty of time where Guild A was preparing and Guild B came in to Leapfrog, so they just both attacked the same mob and whoever got the loot won.

Ninja Looting and repeated training on the other hand did get GM involvement, perma-bans IIRC.

[Molitoth]

On tribunal we only had 2-3 guild that were raid worthy. We all respected each other and if another guild was already assembled in the zone... we let them have it.

There were a few run-ins where both guilds assembled at the same time, and to solve it we had one person from each guild duel it out.


If people on this server would quit being such douchebags, everything should be fine.

For instance, guild A breaks fear (smoothly) the other day and then guild B zergs in after the fact to steal most of the zone mobs.... lame.

[mmiles8]

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

agreements are all well and good, most us of would agree thats whats best. But what happens when one guild breaks the agreement? Whats that accountability look like?

Here's how policy was, by the book. I've trimmed the parts that are irrelevant like funny names and bad language, and bolded the parts that answer your question. Above all else, the point that I'd most like to illustrate, is that when this policy is enforced consistently - across the board, and to the letter - no one likes the RNG, and they choose to work amongst themselves to find a mutually agreeable solution.

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.

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.

8.2 Disruption

8.2.1 Disruption is defined as any activity that is disruptive to the game play of others, though not necessarily with the intent to do so. Disruption has been sub-categorized into major and minor types.

8.2.1.2 Examples of Major Disruption:

Zone/Area Disruption – monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area rather than stealing from a specific player or group of players, deliberately blocking a doorway or narrow area so other players can’t get past, refusing to cooperate with the other parties at a contested spawn site after having been instructed to do so by a CS Representative

8.2.2 Disruption Procedures

8.2.2.1 Disruption is the most difficult problem to deal with, as the accused are frequently not doing it with the intention of disrupting, but simply having fun or behaving as they wish. The key to dealing with Disruption situations is to defuse them with as little customer aggravation as possible.

8.2.2.2 When a Disruption petition comes in, the process is as follows:
• Identify the complainer and the suspected antagonist. Document their character name, level, zone, and account name.
• Go to the zone in question, remaining invisible and anonymous, being sure not to tell
the petitioner you are coming.
• Bring a fellow Guide if possible, preferably invisible and /anon.
• Observe the behavior in question and that of those complaining.
• If there is no problem with the behavior as you and your fellow Guide see it, then explain this to the complainer and close the petition.

8.2.2.3 If it is not possible to distinguish which behavior is worse, the accuser or the accused, engage both groups.

8.2.2.4 If it appears that the accused is being intentionally disruptive,
• Gather information.
• Engage the accused, explain that their behavior is disruptive, and issue a warning. Tell the accused to stop the behavior, then disengage from the incident.
• Do NOT argue or debate the incident with the accused. Do not discuss the incident past what is required to explain the nature of the disruption to them.
• Take note of everything said by the accused and add it to the documentation.
• Record the incident in the abuse database and in the customer's soulmark (using the /warn command) for further review.

8.2.2.5 If the accused is obviously being disruptive, but not necessarily intentionally,
• Engage the accused.
• Attempt to convince the accused to cease the activity, explaining that it is disruptive.

8.2.2.6 If the customer becomes confrontational, treat the issue as if it were intentional, described above.

8.2.2.7 For minor disruptions, three warnings will be issued. The perpetrator will then be suspended for a minimum period of three days. For major disruptions, two warnings will be issued, followed by suspension for a discretionary period with a one-week minimum. The next major disruption offense following suspension for major disruption will result in the player being banned.

Yes, everyone will have their own personal anecdote of support staff who didn't follow protocol. There was a reason Guides were eventually forbidden from handling disputes, and plenty of GMs who got canned. But that's what happens at 8 bits an hour. Xev was a tight ship, and you can see what happens when it's run like one, from fastboy's post above.

Ok I'm done editing now.

[Molitoth]

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

On live everything was sum up into the "Play Nice Policy", you know the saying don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.

So when one guild was zoning into a plane no other guild would zone zone in to compete.
Same with a mob spawned, if one raid force is ready to engage, no one would rush them, but would wait till they either kill or fail.
Ofc after a failed attempt they would talk to 1st raid force to check wether they would give it another shot or if the 2nd raid force could go for it. Otherwise its killstealing, period.
It was basically the rules setup by the dominating guild(s) on my server, Mith Marr.

Spawn variance also encourages spawn camping and zerg guilds to sit 24/7 waiting for repop.. Please remove it, on live it was a set timer, so you don't "need" to camp, you come, if you are the first here you kill and if not you leave the place.
Just kick/port out/temp ban any guild that is camping an unspawned mob and won't see it anymore.

And please no rotation, if one guild is better than others at raiding then they deserve any kill, if others sit around semi afk or cant mobilize fast enough, then its too bad for them.

Oh yeah most importantly on live, GMs were actually enforcing the rules w/o any favoritism ... OOOPS did I say that ?!?!
If GMs were actually doing their duty, we wouldnt see such BS around. When people know they won't be punished because they have a GM friend or guildmate then they just act like idiots.
THIS is the problem you have to solve.

Very nicely said.

[Noser]

Can't we just race to targets from EC tunnels somehow and skip the poopsockery.