Is it that hard to have a raid solution? Here - E . Z .

[President]

+/- 24 hours on on raid mob spawns.

Naggy/Vox - First guild with 15 people in the zone get first attempt, within a reasonable 1 hour window. Then rotate. If there is a dispute or "close call" on who was there first. Raid leaders /rand for first attempt. (1 hour window still applies to whoever /rand, then rotate)

Cazic/Inno - Whatever guild is already clearing trash gets first attempt. If two guilds are in clearing trash at spawn time, raid leader from each guild /rand for first attempt.

Good faith should be shown to each or all guilds and plenty of time for their "attempt" regardless of how "fast" you think they should be moving.

[President]

Is this too simple a solution for everyone?

[Dartagnan]

This is similar to what I suggested. I think there are possible camping issues, etc. but I do generally agree that this is the way to go.

I am all for a variable spawn if people want it.

[President]

So what if they are people camping it? Here's how that would work...

Guild A sits there and camps wasting time with however many people. Guild A find out first, gets 15 in the zone first, gets the first attempt.

Guild A & B both are sitting there wasting time. Mob spawns, Guild B gets 15 people in the zone before Guild A does. Guild B gets first attempt.

Guild A & B both are sitting there wasting time. Mob spawns, it is negotiable who gets 15 there first. Raid Leaders random, whoever wins gets first attempt.


the +/- 24 hours should give it enough of a randomization that most guilds probably wont have a group sitting there waiting for 48 hours(or maybe y'all are that big of losers, either way, it works).

[Hasbinbad]

who would police who got 15 people in the zone first and therefore enforce their claim?

[Hasbinbad]

and what if both guilds had 15 people in the zone at the earliest possible spawn point?

..and taking that to the ultimate end, what happens if both guilds leave 15 people in the zone to camp for a week after the target dies? so that they both have an "equal" claim on the mob?

The end result is back to square one. We have a situation like the one that precipitated all this. This is why some form of rotation, some form of agreed-upon competition, or FFA/KS are the only possible solutions.

[Widan]

who would police who got 15 people in the zone first and therefore enforce their claim?

You do it yourselves. If you are too immature for this then no one is going to get the raid target.

and what if both guilds had 15 people in the zone at the earliest possible spawn point?

Random for it.


..and taking that to the ultimate end, what happens if both guilds leave 15 people in the zone to camp for a week after the target dies? so that they both have an "equal" claim on the mob?

Then when it spawns again they random again if no one has left.


It really works out perfectly. I'm not sure why you are under the assumption that someone must police all these agreements. If you are too immature to follow this system the server would probably be better off if you didn't play here.

[Dartagnan]

All I know is that somehow our server polices itself when it comes to camps. Raid encounters are no different imo.

The problem is that before all this rotation stuff, IB had everything to loose and Trans had everything to gain. I get the feeling that Trans is happy to keep the system this way because it allows them to get loot whereas they were not able to before to the extent that they are now. Not adding any ideas to this debate only helps strengthen this position.

[President]

Thanks for responding for me Widan, I was banging my head against the wall reading Has's posts.

[Reiker]

The EZ solution would be FFA with no camping. Stay out of a zone before a mob spawns, once it spawns the first to engage with force gets it. However this is too easy a solution / too favorable to IB.

[Widan]

The EZ solution would be FFA with no camping. Stay out of a zone before a mob spawns, once it spawns the first to engage with force gets it. However this is too easy a solution / too favorable to IB.

I've already explained why this will not work in another thread. Randomization of spawn times, as well as guaranteeing a raid mob for a certain amount of time to the first guild to claim it are both imperative to make sure that all guilds, especially ones not familiar with the encounter and ones that raid at times that do not coincide with spawn times, have an equal opportunity to compete in the high end raid game, provided they put in the time.

[Onadan]

and what if both guilds had 15 people in the zone at the earliest possible spawn point?

..and taking that to the ultimate end, what happens if both guilds leave 15 people in the zone to camp for a week after the target dies? so that they both have an "equal" claim on the mob?

The end result is back to square one. We have a situation like the one that precipitated all this. This is why some form of rotation, some form of agreed-upon competition, or FFA/KS are the only possible solutions.

Really you can get 30 people to login at the EXACT same time? If a / shows your guild w/ 15 in zone and the other guild has a couple slow zoners and only gets 13 people in, I guess you win w/ 15, a screenshot and log from everyone.

[Dartagnan]

I've already explained why this will not work in another thread. Randomization of spawn times, as well as guaranteeing a raid mob for a certain amount of time to the first guild to claim it are both imperative to make sure that all guilds, especially ones not familiar with the encounter and ones that raid at times that do not coincide with spawn times, have an equal opportunity to compete in the high end raid game, provided they put in the time.

It's not imperative. Somehow servers on classic survived. Maybe it will be imperative in 2012, but not now.

[Widan]

It's imperative if you want the server to keep increasing in population. This isn't live, its an emu. People are already getting turned off because of the high end circle jerk they see all over the forums and in game.

[Pyrocat]

All I know is that somehow our server polices itself when it comes to camps. Raid encounters are no different imo.


Not really, I've seen people train my friends camping EE multiple times.

[Dartagnan]

It's imperative if you want the server to keep increasing in population. This isn't live, its an emu. People are already getting turned off because of the high end circle jerk they see all over the forums and in game.

And thus you hit my conspiracy theory...at least for Wenai :)

Fairness is being exchanged for more people to play on. Screw over a minority to appease the majority.

That's it, I'm calling Al Sharpton.

[Dartagnan]

Not really, I've seen people train my friends camping EE multiple times.

Of course there are issues but overall there are cultural ways we handle camps. It's a built in way of handling EQ that we all learned back in 1999. You enter a zone and you shout camp check. You wait your turn for the camp, etc, etc.

[Widan]

Fairness is being exchanged for more people to play on. Screw over a minority to appease the majority.


Fairness is subjective. Personally, I'd much rather have the server adopt a rule set that encourages more people to play even if that causes some of the high end people to quit.

[Dartagnan]

Fairness is subjective. Personally, I'd much rather have the server adopt a rule set that encourages more people to play even if that causes some of the high end people to quit.

I understand.

But I'm still calling Al.

[Haynar]

I say the guilds work something out they can agree on.

Everytime there is a dispute, and GM must intervene, then mob is GM Killed, and they can try to work something out next spawn.

Eventually they will work it out.