Proposed Raid Rule Adjustments/Changes

[Striiker]

I appreciate that devs are busy. This adjustment was proposed for consideration at some point. If it's a relatively minor tweak, then it could be a candidate for a more immediate implementation. If there's a lot more to it, then it can be set aside for future contemplation. We are all trying to be creative to address the problems which crop up with a solution to a problem.

Concerning the advantage that a larger guild would have, this is mitigated by restricting the number of taggers camped near the spawn location (although a guild could send out more pullers from the raid location to assist). Also, it's not too difficult to figure out the roaming path and they can play smartly with a couple good trackers running along that path to find the target. The intent was to have a specific area for the raids to camp out.

I just don't know if it's better to replace one broken system with another (auto fire keyboards vs. IP exempt accounts on fast computers with low latency connections). Perhaps it's worth a test run for a month?

[Anichek]

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

im not a dev, so this is not by any means set in stone.

however i will say, every dev is busy as fuck right now with velious and fixing things that are broke that are already on the server.

i would absolutely not hold my breath waiting for non classic dev changes to the raid scene.

evenm if it was randomized spawn spots, you guys realize that guilds like BDA/IB/TMO/Taken and anyone with a very large playerbase will still find and roflstomp those merbs before guilds with half the member count can do the same. if anything, not knowing where the spawn would be will hurt the smaller guilds imo.

i'm not saying im right, or my word is law, just sharing my opinions

I think that the major point on the randomization (which probably can't happen anyway) is that when it's a Class C or FFA mob, the spirit of competition is heightened, yet somewhat equalized, by the randomization. Smaller guilds have absolutely zero chance in a known spawn point engage race vs. bigger guilds (as you state) - but randomization would add some intrigue to it.

...until zones start to have 30 trackers from a dozen guilds walking from ZL to ZL doing a police call, picking up trash and cigarette butts until they stumble upon a dragon on accident.

[Komodon]

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

I just don't know if it's better to replace one broken system with another (auto fire keyboards vs. IP exempt accounts on fast computers with low latency connections). Perhaps it's worth a test run for a month?

Again, it really just boils down to a lesser evil factor here. Personally, i know i'd rather lose FTE to the puller with a fast pc then some pet agro'ing .1 seconds after spawn and who's owner i suspect wasn't even sitting at the keyboard.

The potential of seeing spam/auto-fire tracking is something that's likely only going to expand and get worse in Velious, so the sooner we nip it in the butt the better for everybody imo. Not to mention if you choose to keep it simple with a basic "people in the zone at the time of spawn can not secure an FTE"...it's still a pretty easy fix. Boom, no more tears or finger pointing about auto-firing ever again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If a few of you class R guilds (who plan on going for FFA mobs) want to give it a try this weekend, TMO is game. Just give the word here.

[Ella`Ella]

I would like to revisit this thread, specifically to seek commentary by Inglourious Basterds' thoughts on the matter.

Hokushin, I know you and I both agreed on this matter in the past and would like us to reconsider it's mutual benefit to both Class-C guilds and to Class-R.

[Nightbear]

Great ideas overall in this post. If the Dev Team is willing to look at even the minor changes addressed in this post I think it would be an improvement in our raid scene.

[Hokushin]

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

I would like to revisit this thread, specifically to seek commentary by Inglourious Basterds' thoughts on the matter.

Hokushin, I know you and I both agreed on this matter in the past and would like us to reconsider it's mutual benefit to both Class-C guilds and to Class-R.

My PM to you 3 weeks ago was that I was not agreeing to the ranger tracking in VP, since you guys trained us on 5/14's full repop.. we still have not got the petition resolved.

If you would like, I will agree to a temporary ranger tracking over the next 2 weekends in VP only, and we'll see how that goes. Unfortunately for IB our pull team is outnumbered 4 to 1, but on the plus side, doing it this way allows an extra couple minutes for people to log in.

So if you would like to do the 2 week VP ranger trial, then reply here for all to see please.

[Ella`Ella]

Signed.

We'll start the trial run next weekend to allow for 2 full cycles of VP.

[Hokushin]

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

Signed.

We'll start the trial run next weekend to allow for 2 full cycles of VP.

Any rules you want to state before the repops?

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

I believe these are what we discussed in our vent meeting 6 weeks ago

[wycca]

I wanted to echo some of Sirken's concerns and add some. Basically, you now will require some very specific tracker classes and setups. All in all, it would end up hurting the more casual or smaller guilds competitiveness without changing the raid scene much. You'd just end up requiring specific classes. It would only be a bard rush setup in PoHate really IMO.

All in all, I'd rather go with the current FTE lottery - which about any class can participate in - rather than some specific sniping setups. I think we'd be trading something that is silly (ie 10+ guilds contesting spawns that are engaged immediately and die in like 15sec) for something that is worse.

In the end the problem is that we have 10-13 guilds competing for 32k hp mob spawns - this is why they implemented instanced raid content on live. Fiddle with the rules all you want, you just end up creating new abominations of raid/tracking strats as guilds compensate to gain an advantage.

[Komodon]

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

Any rules you want to state before the repops?

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

I believe these are what we discussed in our vent meeting 6 weeks ago

1. Like we talked about then, the problem with trying to police where the FTE'ers are logging into is that it adds an extra layer of potential issues and policing needs to the equation. I thought we compromised with limiting it to 2 FTE'ers logging into any one spawn point. Anymore then that and we can both agree ahead of time to forfeit the mob on spawn.

2. We agreed to 2, pending you guys getting a second ranger in there. If that didn't happen then we are fine going with the one if that's what we need to do to make it work.

3. Sounds good

4. Sounds good