OFFICIAL PROPOSAL from FE/TMO

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd suggest removing Fay/Sev/Inny from priority target list.

The big 3 can always get green scales from Hosh, Fay is one of those easy dragons that would allow smaller guilds to compete for them (lvl55).

This is a good suggestion.

[Ecguy]

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

Need to change it to the slaying of a VP Dragon, not just the attempt. Being penalized from other raid targets doesn't help you grow into a guild that can actually compete. it just keeps those on top from having to worry about loosing anything in VP once again.

This is not a bad idea.

[baalzy]

1) This is an 'Official Proposal' from IB/FE (Maybe just FE?) and has been signed by IB/FE (Maybe just FE?) and TMO. Not the 'Official rules moving forward', at least, not yet.

2) I think this is reasonable if you really try to look at things objectively and don't get caught up in the gleaming lights of Bag limits and such. Those ideas, while being great, would also naturally lead to people leaving the 'hardcore' guilds for guilds with fewer raid-goers. It's not reasonable to expect the 'big players' to reduce their member-size just to be able to distribute gear in a reasonable fashion. I'd say the VP thing is a bit dodgy (should really be in effect after 1st successful kill) and the Inny/Fay inclusion on the non-priority list that Alarti threw out and Derubael seconded is a good idea too.

3) Nothing is stopping 'B' guilds from competing for every non-vp mob in the game, this agreement is basically a check on the top-guilds saying they'll make sure that 20-30% of ALL raid targets get distributed to the less hardcore guilds.

4) This gives the hardcores the ability to get their rocks-off while preventing a server-wide cockblock of all desirable pixels by one guild.

[Ella`Ella]

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

This proposal effective lets BDA, Div, Taken, and others compete solely against each other once a month for Trak. Assuming a three way split, how long would it take a guild to get VP keyed? Assume a 3 way split or VS...how many epic/year is that?

There is nothing in this proposal that disallows and person or guild from raiding priority targets every day of the month. It seems more to me your unwillingness to try and engage these mobs while FE, IB and TMO are contesting them as well...

[Jesseca]

I guess we are considered Category C? Which did not exist on that proposal.

[Rusl]

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

1) This is an 'Official Proposal' from FE and has been signed by FE and TMO. Not the 'Official rules moving forward', at least, not yet.

2) I think this is reasonable if you really try to look at things objectively and don't get caught up in the gleaming lights of Bag limits and such. Those ideas, while being great, would also naturally lead to people leaving the 'hardcore' guilds for guilds with fewer raid-goers. It's not reasonable to expect the 'big players' to reduce their member-size just to be able to distribute gear in a reasonable fashion. I'd say the VP thing is a bit dodgy (should really be in effect after 1st successful kill) and the Inny/Fay inclusion on the non-priority list that Alarti threw out and Derubael seconded is a good idea too.

3) Nothing is stopping 'B' guilds from competing for every non-vp mob in the game, this agreement is basically a check on the top-guilds saying they'll make sure that 20-30% of ALL raid targets get distributed to the less hardcore guilds.

4) This gives the hardcores the ability to get their rocks-off while preventing a server-wide cockblock of all desirable pixels by one guild.

If you don't see Getsome posting in here then no, IB has not signed off on anything

[Bossman]

Council needs to be amended to include others and sanction vote should be x-2/x vote, because "IB and FE are different guilds"

[Ella`Ella]

I would agree for FE that we will concede inny as well, but fay will remain. And, we can revisit the VP attempt to a kill.

[Ambrotos]

The only thing settle is there isn't a agreement. If you don't like it, get together and fix it. I'm still having a hard time why only 2 guilds are coming to an agreement and passing it off to the others on here as here it is do you want to agree?

Include all your counterparts and hash it out. Seems two major factions have two different ideas.

[August]

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

Some clarification.

no poopsocking - you are basically saying no poop socking but people are still allowed to camp alt armies in the zone waiting for pops? (which seems an awful lot like poopsocking but being able to play your alts while you wait)

Cat A & Cat B - Are Cat B guilds allowed to mobilize during the majority of the time (3/4) that Cat A guilds have claimed their prioritized mobs?

Rotations - how do the Category A guilds plan on sharing mobs? The same way they have in the past? Is not the majority of the 'upset' people FE/IB complaining that TMO gets the mobs? How are we rectifying the tension between Category A guilds?

Switching categories - Is the 40% requirement only on priority raid targets? Or is it deprioritizied as well? Seems like an extremely stiff requirement to begin with, but if they have to compete with the uberguilds for that percentage it seems impossible.

Category A - you state 20% is required. You realize that this means that, more than likely, only 3 guilds can stay category A at any one time? This agreement pretty much says 'We three guilds get the majority of the good mobs forever" 4 guilds means that for everyone to stay in you'd all have to be at 25%. There aren't enough targets out there for 1% granularity in these measurements. That's an incredible balancing act. At 5 guilds you'd all have to be spot on the money, which is never going to happen. Seems like this is catered towards the big 3.

Nice attempt, just think that the numbers need to be adjusted. Current implementation locks the server into a top-3 mentality with an extremely stiff climb to make it a top 4. Once in top 4, it is almost necessity that someone gets ejected. Replacement effects are nice, but with the ability to poopsock via alts I just don't see anything really changing here besides casuals getting thrown a bone 1 week a month.

could you please address my points? I think that several points are not clear, and I would appreciation clarification.