First Aggro + 15

[Phallax]

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

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

While I am not to the raid scene yet on the server. I can point out that the only way to eliminate camping would be.

1. Set spawn times that everyone knows.
or
2. A rotation or a semi-rotation similar to Suicide Kings proposal.

Yes, #1 is very helpful. With no variation in spawn time, raid forces will not have to camp, they can just show up. However, this means that the raid mobs will be killed at the same time every week, with only an increment of a few minutes. This means that people in certain time zones just get shut out. The only way around that I can think of is to have the spawn times be a number of days +4 or +6 hours, so that they progress around the clock. However, even then, I prefer the variance, Here's an example of why:

Say on one particular Saturday... Vox was killed at 9:30am EST, Nagafen was killed at 10:15am EST, and Innoruuk was killed at 10:35am EST

With no variance, the next Saturday, raid forces could just kill one at the exact right time and know exactly how much time they had to move to the next target. This gives a huge advantage to the guild that killed the previous week who has a rock solid exact time of death.

However, with variance raid forces with some knowledge of time of death, even exact would have to decide which one they wanted to prepare for, since they couldn't be in all 3 places at the same time and the spawn windows would significantly overlap.

There is a balance involved. Overlapping spawn windows make it harder for one guild to monopolize content. Most people feel that is a good thing. To make spawn windows overlap, it helps for them to be long. However, the competing pressure is that longer spawn windows encourage camping. In the end, I thought just enough variance to progress the spawns around the clock was the best compromise. In my judgement, camping is a worse outcome than one guild using knowledge of Time of Death to monopolize spawns.

Originally Posted by Leokaiser

If two raids are camping, it won't matter which showed up first and spent the most time there (afk!), first try will go to the raid that acts quickest. Theoretically, one raid that camped but isn't on the ball could lose out to a raid which has only just shown up but is ready to go.

That is exactly the point. If guild X shows up 20 min before the spawn and is on the ball, they can get the mob over guild Y who has been there for 15 hours and barely has any eyeballs on the screen cause half are afk, a third are alt-tabbed, and the rest are weary.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

It still promotes camping. Which is what were trying to get away from.

I am looking at the best ways to mitigate something that will likely always be present, while giving a level playing field to all time zones, and encouraging competition.

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

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

All parties will never agree to give up a behavior that enhances their chances of getting loot under the rules in effect. So, can we please end that line of argument?

As for a rotation, there are two serious problems that make a rotation a non-starter.

1. Unless it is GM enforced, a raid force that doesn't like it can simply ignore it, and GMs have said they WILL NOT manage a rotation for us. Any rotation would have to be player created, player agreed upon, and player enforced... which brings me to point #2.

2. There will always be enough players on the server that prefer competition to a rotation to band together and race for raid targets. Without GM enforcement of the rotation those people who want to compete for spawns will gather together and do so, not caring at all which group the rotation says is supposed to get the mob.

Until someone can convince me that one or both of those statements is false, I will consider ideas of a rotation to be non-starters. If anyone has a rebuttal to this line of argument, can we move that discussion on the viability and nature of any potential rotation system to its own thread?

[Leokaiser]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will.

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed. As things stand, however, the rules actively encourage camping. I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

[Akame]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. .

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

[astarothel]

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

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed.

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?

[Fahn]

First off just want to say that I was in no way advocating either solution in my previous post. Was just saying.

In essence the only way to eliminate camping is a rotation agreement of sorts.

And again before I continue want to say I am not advocating any solution, just pointing out things I see.

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Collusion like that only works when certain conditions are met.

1. The parties colluding must have the means to lock out outside competition.

2. None of the colluding parties can believe they could be better off by cheating their partners.

Number 1 is impossible without the rotation or agreement being GM enforced, which is somewhere between "highly unlikely" and "never hapening" given previous dev statements on rotations.

Number 2 is a rare and elusive balance that never seems to last for long. Members of real life cartels are forever stabbing each other in the back and looking for advantages. A little research on OPEC or the Columbian drug trade should satisfy anyone's curiosity on that point. Even if that balance was ever achieved, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.

Bah, here I go discussing rotations in my own thread again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Bad Dumesh!

[Leokaiser]

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

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

I think the amount of debate going on and the vast differences in opinion expressed indicates there is no 'bulletproof argument'. Some people want strictly moderated rotations, others FFA with no rules beyond that. I entirely agree that this is a matter people will have to compromise on, and I imagine the matter will be (or perhaps should be) decided by which manner of compromise is the most reasonable and/or has the most popular support and provides the least amount of work for GMs.

As said, views on the subject vary, but as for me...

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

I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

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