New OOA Non-aggression agreement

[Argh]

Terms:

Guilds herein are bound to:

Not kill the Overseer of Air or Hand of Veeshan under any circumstances.
Treat Noble Dojorn, Overseer of Air, and Hand of Veeshan as raid mobs (i.e. hands off during raid suspensions)


Discipline:

If the terms of this agreement are broken by a guild that has agreed to be bound by its terms, after this agreement has been officially ratified, said guild will be subjected to the following discipline:

Suspension from Plane of Sky (this includes the Efreeti cycle) for 1 week per each infraction. (i.e. Killing two Overseers of Air or one Overseer of Air and one Hand of Veeshan yields a two week sky suspension, killing one Overseer of Air yields a one week sky suspension, etc.)


Ratification:

This agreement will be officially enacted once all guilds who currently have a sky slot agree and sign here.

Dissolution:

This agreement will be officially dissolved if a guild outside of this agreement kills an Oversee of Air.

[Argh]

A-Team signs.

[arsenalpow]

BDA is ok with this.

[Nightbear]

Indignation signs.

[Powtle]

Europa signs too.

[bktroost]

*signed*

[Dentalplan]

Divinity signs

[Pint]

Asgard signs

[Erati]

Taken signs

[arsenalpow]

Noble was downed early this morning, Overseer/Hand no where to be found.

[Komodon]

Noble was downed early this morning, Overseer/Hand no where to be found.

As Unbrella already laid out, our stance at this point is pretty straight forward after last week. If the name of the game here is going to see people doing what they feel is in their own best interests first and foremost, then that's what we are going to do as well. Afterall, we were getting more Noble cycle kills under the old system then we have since and/or would ever have realistically projected to get under a new one.

For the record though, i'd love to hear your answer on the question Deru proposed in the Catt thread earlier. What should be the appropriate punishment for Taken trying to autofire that last noble? Never mind the fact that most of the open-to-reasonable-negotiation voices i run into these days seem to get drowned out by a few select bloodhounds calling the shots for them, and these are the people essentially asking for a "don't be so hardcore" favor here. That Taken was doing it in the first place, before running to sign this agreement after losing out to our spam clicking crew, made us want to sign even less fwiw.

Although i guess now we can extend the autofire issue beyond the "not class R's problem" stance you took with me last time we spoke, and potentially make it a weekly one for everybody. Not just TMO's in VP.

Happy Hunting/Clicking.

[Erati]

This is highly disappointing as it was already explained that

A. The only reason Taken killed the previous OoA was because we were under the impression that someone sniped him after WE left him up in good faith

B. When we killed Overseer an agreement consensus was still no where in sight yet somehow we were suppose to abide by something that had no official rules to abide by...

So now we bring forth something tangible, something other guilds can look to and embrace with real meaning, something that will be enforced as the letter of the law but TMO now refuses to play ball because they are too rustled about 1 Overseer and 1 Hand.

Autofire is not a class R problem, its a SERVER problem, but in all honestly, it gives people a piece of mind because asking someone to slap tab for 16 hours is beyond inhumane...its disgusting.

[Argh]

Could we keep this thread to just signatures/constructive discussion on the agreement rather than conjecture on ooa killings and rnf issues, and continue to use the other thread (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135228) for everything else?

Also, I'm not sure if you were mentioning the FTE rules you proposed for VP in jest but I certainly would not be opposed to that also extending to Sky for Noble.

[Komodon]

Also, I'm not sure if you were mentioning the FTE rules you proposed for VP in jest but I certainly would not be opposed to that also extending to Sky for Noble.

No jest there. I've been pushing to put a dagger in autofire use for months. On every contested raid mob, which would include Noble.

Of course, let's cut through the bs and be honest. Nobody here really seems to care about that kinda stuff unless it's directly effecting them. Which until that day comes, only serves to accommodate the people that are using it.

[Nightbear]

Suggestions to making an amendment to the rules? How can we make this a better system.

[wycca]

Since they can't post here themselves - Omni signs. I got a ss of it, just too lazy to put it up atm.

[Ella`Ella]

The bottom line here in this matter, at least with regard to TMO, is that we're going to continue to treat the Noble, OoA, Hand cycle as fully contested content. I'd like you all to keep in mind that TMO has never broken this agreement in the past and has probably benefited the least from the OoA agreement this far (without complaint, mind you). We've forgone a significant number of Nobles and for the entire month of March we didn't engage a single one. In fact, I believe TMO has only engaged about 5 nobles since the start of the year, for an average of less than 1 a month.

Please note that our decision is not to spite any existing agreement or Class-R as a whole. I have spoken with both Cobblestone and Argh and agree that we would be willing to adhere to GM enforcement of protecting Overseers. However, since there is no such agreement and the past few weeks have been sparked of guilds engaging them for whatever reason, we can only logically conclude that the absence of enforcement is going to continue to cause these overseers to be engaged and we're going to take a cut of the action.

That being said, if the GM's or whichever power-at-be can enforce this, if a protective agreement of Overseers were to come to light (GM Enforced) and Noble went to join the Class-R/Class-C/FFA cycle, I will (without reservation) sign TMO to that extent. Until then, the noble cycle will remain FFA/fully contested to us. We came to this measure after the third incident executed by other guilds. We are not placing blame on any of the offending guilds for their actions, nor considering our measure 'a consequence of their actions', however, this is more us reacting to a current 'state of the pixels'.

I understand the language of this Non-Aggression agreement, however it doesn't seem very robust. What I mean is that, by the terms set forward, if I were to sign TMO's name to this and we did break the OoA agreement, we would be punished. However, if I refuse to sign our name to it and then go on to kill the OoA's, there would be no penalty. I would rather abide by the agreement in good faith and reserve the latitude to engage the OoA's if I felt necessary and not fall subject to disciplinary action, than sign our name to it and forgo that same notion.

If you're unable to see the forest through the trees in this post, please default to my TL;DR below.

TL;DR - Unless GM's enforce protection (which we'll support and abide by, but won't urge them to do) and put noble on the same cycle as other raid targets, TMO will continue to treat Noble, OoA and HoV as fully contested FFA mobs.

[Ella`Ella]

For the record though, i'd love to hear your answer on the question Deru proposed in the Catt thread earlier. What should be the appropriate punishment for Taken trying to autofire that last noble?

Happy Hunting/Clicking.

The use of auto-fire destroys the integrity of the game. If Class-C and Class-R were cross pollinating the way they used to on the server, I know we'd hear a lot more cries over its abuse. This is an epidemic that we have the power to stop. Although the Class-R doesn't see the immediate effect on their own class of raiding, it's only a matter of time before it starts to grief you (e.g. when Lord Bob or GT start using it to FTE mobs during your rotation). We have an opportunity to end this now and indefinitely by implement a simple rule - You can park two FTE toons wherever you want (this eliminates bullshit policing and fraps/petition questing over who was where), you can have a maximum of two trackers tracking the mob and those trackers (nor anyone else in zone) engage that mob when it spawns.

The question here is what should be done about Catherin? In my opinion - absolutely nothing. Catherin helped illuminate an epidemic that is running through both Class-C and Class-R. She was also forthcoming with staff and the way I see it, really helped shine some light on exactly how pervasive this situation is on all sides of the fence (as it was previously perceived to be only native to Class-C). I don't want Catherin's blood, I don't want IB's blood, I don't want the blood of my own that might have used it spilled. I want the integrity of FTE (for whatever that is worth) preserved and enforced. That simple rule stated by both myself and Mazam ensures this measure.

[Derubael]

If everyone were to agree to this, it may ease some of the bad blood we've had recently in the raid scene. Just a thought, and something we'd like to encourage. And for the record, anything you can all agree on is something we will enforce.

In regards to autofire, we are working on a solution to this problem. We hope to get something implemented soon.

[Artaenc]

If everyone were to agree to this, it may ease some of the bad blood we've had recently in the raid scene. Just a thought, and something we'd like to encourage. And for the record, anything you can all agree on is something we will enforce.

In regards to autofire, we are working on a solution to this problem. We hope to get something implemented soon.

Will you be banning people that used it in the past? To make it fair I'd like to use it if it is currently not punishable to even the grounds on FTE while you're working on the solution.

[Derubael]

Will you be banning people that used it in the past? To make it fair I'd like to use it if it is currently not punishable to even the grounds on FTE while you're working on the solution.

Autofire and other similar programs/hardware is still not allowed on this server.

[Pint]

Although i guess now we can extend the autofire issue beyond the "not class R's problem" stance you took with me last time we spoke, and potentially make it a weekly one for everybody. Not just TMO's in VP.

Happy Hunting/Clicking.

So essentially since class R didn't force IB to play by the rules Tmo wants, Tmo is going to shit down all of our throats in response. New Tmo, old Tmo, it's all Tmo to us at the end of the day.

[Nightbear]

If everyone were to agree to this

Who is everyone? Everyone apart of the Sky rotation?

Just wondering how any player agree'd upon rules enforced by GMs affects guild who are completely against the class system.

[Erati]

Who is everyone? Everyone apart of the Sky rotation?

Just wondering how any player agree'd upon rules enforced by GMs affects guild who are completely against the class system.

basically everyone that signs will be held to the agreement was my understanding

this particular agreement only becomes one once all the Sky guilds sign it ( only missing TMO and IB off the schedule currently)

so for example: Lord Bob never signs or agrees to this,the GMs cant punish them for killing the Overseer however they also face heavy pressure and public scrutiny...also it becomes a 10+guild versus 1 competition as everyone that signs basically has a vested interest in keeping the Overseers protected

[Argh]

I understand the language of this Non-Aggression agreement, however it doesn't seem very robust. What I mean is that, by the terms set forward, if I were to sign TMO's name to this and we did break the OoA agreement, we would be punished. However, if I refuse to sign our name to it and then go on to kill the OoA's, there would be no penalty. I would rather abide by the agreement in good faith and reserve the latitude to engage the OoA's if I felt necessary and not fall subject to disciplinary action, than sign our name to it and forgo that same notion.

This agreement doesn't become binding until TMO and IB sign. A lack of your signature means that everyone else who has signed can continue to kill OoA's without penalty as well.

That being said, if the GM's or whichever power-at-be can enforce this, if a protective agreement of Overseers were to come to light (GM Enforced) and Noble went to join the Class-R/Class-C/FFA cycle, I will (without reservation) sign TMO to that extent.

If this agreement were expanded to include an agreement for treating Noble spawns as a C/R/FFA cycle you would sign?

I don't see us being able to get it changed in an official capacity (getting it included on raid.php) as that would require some additional work for Rogean and doing so may be outside of the scope of this agreement but I do not foresee any issue with all Class-R guilds agreeing to treat Noble spawns like this.

[Komodon]

So essentially since class R didn't force IB to play by the rules Tmo wants, Tmo is going to shit down all of our throats in response. New Tmo, old Tmo, it's all Tmo to us at the end of the day.

Actually, no.

Not that I would expect you to see past your jaded hatred or desire to secure an uncontested Noble for Asgard there. I mean who cares about TMO's best interests in the event if conflicts with your own, right?

For the record though, you of all people here have the most unrestricted access to me through our vent. If you actually want to legitimately debate this beyond your tendency to stick to one liner type pot shots, you know how to find me.

[wycca]

So essentially since class R didn't force IB to play by the rules Tmo wants, Tmo is going to shit down all of our throats in response. New Tmo, old Tmo, it's all Tmo to us at the end of the day.

I think you're wrong. TMO has concerns about the proposed agreement. They've come to the table, since the leadership change, quite often about a number of things. I can attest to that fact personally - they re-arranged their sky raid times and kill order for us. There was no other reason to do so other than being good neighbors - I know it had to inconvenience their own sky raiders majorly, but they did it anyways. They've also been willing to talk about Efreeti agreements and have also been reasonable, and in fact, relatively generous at times in the past at least whenever people have taken the opportunity to reach out.

I've only ever talked for any length of time to 4 TMO members, ever - two of which are/were officers and the conversation has always been focused around PoSky. I just go by what my own interactions indicate, and this is how I see it. The amount of anti-TMO hate is sometimes astounding and often seems based on things I find silly. Every guild on this server probably has the following goals when it comes to guild relations - to be treated with respect, not be the target of threats from others, and to respond if someone attacks them publicly. I don't have the burden of old TMO's legacy influencing my views towards them, because I've never seen it. I have, however, in the last 3 months, gone to talk to them in a reasonable manner, not threatened them when there are mix-ups, and avoided any stupidity in RNF. Generally the idea is to have a conversation like adults and not blow your top. Try it sometime, even with people you have a problem with, you might be surprised at the results. I know I was (given what I'd heard), and I know Argh has been as he's talked to them...and as he's talked to other guilds that one wouldn't expect to be civil, as he's worked on this OoA agreement.

Despite the torch & pitchfork view that people seem to have on here, TMO didn't break the OoA NAP - IB did, and TMO didn't kill additional OoA's in the interm creating an even more tense environment - Taken did. They have their concerns, they stated their desires - just because they don't match up with yours doesn't mean they are nefarious. When everyone's position aligns, we will have an agreement. Until then, we simply do not, there is no need for yelling and insults. The only guild who hasn't spoken here (to my knowledge), is IB - and they're the ones who broke it in the first place. We're all being incredibly optimistic and silly in attacking TMO if the key player, the one who broke the first agreement, isn't coming to the table.

[Pint]

Actually, no.

Not that I would expect you to see past your jaded hatred or desire to secure an uncontested Noble for Asgard there. I mean who cares about TMO's best interests in the event if conflicts with your own, right?

For the record though, you of all people here have the most unrestricted access to me through our vent. If you actually want to legitimately debate this beyond your tendency to stick to one liner type pot shots, you know how to find me.

We have discussed this and your posts here reflect that convo strongly..

Although i guess now we can extend the autofire issue beyond the "not class R's problem" stance you took with me last time we spoke, and potentially make it a weekly one for everybody. Not just TMO's in VP.

Happy Hunting/Clicking.

This literally sums up how our convo went/ended and Im assuming that when you say 'you' you are referencing me, unless you had the same conversation with other class R members and ended in the same place.. big surprise. You were confused then as to why class R didn't seem all that interested in helping you strong arm IB, your posts here outright say that since you and IB can't come to terms then the rest of us will be forced to play fte with the two of you. The noble agreement can eliminate the need for anyone to have to auto fire on these encounters, it doesn't solve y'alls vp issue but it does help reduce auto fire for the noble issue, it's progress, why stall it? And fuck yea Asgard wants a few easy dojorns, we are not at all ashamed to admit that. You guys can key mash for 16 hrs to preserve whatever integrity y'all think y'all are preserving but to me and I'm assuming others y'alls desire to keep this activity alive isn't an example of integrity, it's an example of aspergers.

[Pint]

I think you're wrong..

Thats alright with me, you make plenty of good points in your post about working with others and typically when we do attempt to work with tmo it works out well for us. However, this thread is literally the new OoA non-aggression agreement thread, it had nothing to do with fte or autofire until tmo came in here and posted that they would not be participating and now the thread is an autofire issue. If you cannot see that tmo is using the OoA situation to force class R into taking a stronger stance against IB then Im not sure what to do for you, to me it seems very blatant but then again as I said above I have already had these conversations with Mazam.

This isnt going to look good, but if it really comes down to 16 hours of keyboard mashing or simply using a 3rd party program then I will take the 3rd party program all day long. I wouldnt wish 16 hours on jav spamming on my worst enemy, hell I wouldnt even wish that fate on tmo.

[Komodon]

This isnt going to look good, but if it really comes down to 16 hours of keyboard mashing or simply using a 3rd party program then I will take the 3rd party program all day long. I wouldnt wish 16 hours on jav spamming on my worst enemy, hell I wouldnt even wish that fate on tmo.

Actually, this is what best sums up the only conversation we had on the matter. Well, that and little banter revolving around your "TMO scum" outlook you are going to have towards my guild anyway and regardless of the decision we made here.

The "you" there was directed at Chest, and yes i had the "let's try and do away with autofire all together" talk with various other class R guilds. Erati and i even seemed to more or less be on the same exact page on the matter when we spoke (which of course was before Catherin got caught, and he naturally went on the soften his stated stance some here. Still view him as one of the good guys though).
The base claim i was coming to you in direct hopes you would "strong arm" IB is kinda humorous though. For starters, i already expected you not to care for reasons already stated in this thread. Beyond that, and to be perfectly blunt, i'd have an even harder time seeing Hoku/Getsome even hearing you out in the event you were to try :).

I posted what i did there to once again stress that whether it's now or latter, autofire use is everybody's problem (not just TMO's). Just like i was well before the OOA agreement was broken. If this just so happens to serve as a reminder to that, so be it. I do admit i was fairly disappointed nobody seemed to see that though, and that your consistently jaded attitude towards our guild certainly isn't helping your case to convince us in the upside of getting 1/10 of the Noble cycle kills that we used to.

(Edit. Somebody took offense i spelled a name wrong, so i fixed it)

[Ella`Ella]

Maz, which cop am I supposed to be again?

[Pint]

The base claim i was coming to you in direct hopes you would "strong arm" IB is kinda humorous though. For starters, i already expected you not to care for reasons already stated in this thread. Beyond that, and to be perfectly blunt, i'd have an even harder time seeing Hoku/Getsome even hearing you out in the event you were to try :).


Are we still pretending that this is not exactly what is happening? You can harp on me not caring for your guild (I dont) but you can stop pretending like its just blind hate, that we just pull this stuff out of nowhere and tmo has somehow not earned the bias attitude that most of us have. If you want to use this agreement to to force your agenda with ib then thats fine, we can play that game, but stop pretending like Im just jaded towards your guild, your guild is taking a stance that is going to negatively affect my guild.

[Ella`Ella]

Are we still pretending that this is not exactly what is happening? You can harp on me not caring for your guild (I dont) but you can stop pretending like its just blind hate, that we just pull this stuff out of nowhere and tmo has somehow not earned the bias attitude that most of us have. If you want to use this agreement to to force your agenda with ib then thats fine, we can play that game, but stop pretending like Im just jaded towards your guild, your guild is taking a stance that is going to negatively affect my guild.

Pint, how is this going to negatively affect your guild? Feel free to respond in the appropriate forum and link the redirect so we can move this discussion away from the sky thread like you mentioned.

Actually, Sirken, Deru, Eunomia - If you come across this thread, can you please merge posts 17 (I think that's about where this turns to an Auto-Fire/Proposed Raid Change discussion) to this thread: http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152630. It would help keep these recent discussions a little more organized for both players and staff.

[Pint]

Pint, how is this going to negatively affect your guild?

No noble agreement is bad for my guild, I'm not sure why I need sources and citations for that to be obvious. This thread was about that agreement, now it is about autofire. Well what do you want class R to do about autofire specifically? Would you like me to take hoku over my knee and give him a spanking for you? Would you like me to use my backdoor connection to convince Rogean and Nilbog to give you guys the time of day? I'm sorry I can't do either of those things for you guys. Do I want to use autofire, do I want other people to use autofire? No obviously I do not, but this thread was not related to that specific issue until you guys decided to derail it.

[Ella`Ella]

Pint, how is this going to negatively affect your guild? Feel free to respond in the appropriate forum and link the redirect so we can move this discussion away from the sky thread like you mentioned.

Reread this and try again.

[Komodon]

Maz, which cop am I supposed to be again?

The good one. Unless the situation involves Chest, in which case we switch.

Are we still pretending that this is not exactly what is happening? You can harp on me not caring for your guild (I dont) but you can stop pretending like its just blind hate, that we just pull this stuff out of nowhere and tmo has somehow not earned the bias attitude that most of us have. If you want to use this agreement to to force your agenda with ib then thats fine, we can play that game, but stop pretending like Im just jaded towards your guild, your guild is taking a stance that is going to negatively affect my guild.

Speaking of which, you sound a lot like Chest there. Just saying.

Again, if highlighting the problem of autofire use is a byproduct of our decision not to cater to you own individual need here, so be it. I don't have a problem with that. There's a lot more reasoning for us not to want to do that at this point though then some belief that IB will suddenly give a crap about what Asgard or anybody else thinks they should do. Regardless what you and a few of our friends want to speculate among yourselves.

Feel free to go back and read through the thread. It's all in there :)

[Pint]

Reread this and try again.

Just take my post and pretend like it is in the thread you want it to be in Unbrella.

[Pint]

Speaking of which, you sound a lot like Chest there. Just saying.

This is the single worst thing you've ever sad to me Maz and I'm sad that you can't take it back now = \

There's a lot more reasoning for us not to want to do that at this point though then some belief that IB will suddenly give a crap about what Asgard or anybody else thinks they should do. Regardless what you and a few of our friends want to speculate among yourselves.

We would like to see the nobles rotated OR only killed by the guild who has sky that day, without OOAs being killed.. with all guilds agreeing

That seems pretty close to what the rest of us are trying to achieve. This is not enough for you guys to move forward with, for me it seemed reasonable enough.

[Ella`Ella]

This is the single worst thing you've ever sad to me Maz and I'm sad that you can't take it back now = \





That seems pretty close to what the rest of us are trying to achieve. This is not enough for you guys to move forward with, for me it seemed reasonable enough.

We'll be happy with nobles rotating by Class-R/Class-C/FFA, but not a full rotation like you have going in Class-R at the moment. That I'll sign to.

(While also observing a non-aggression towards OoA)

[Pint]

We'll be happy with nobles rotating by Class-R/Class-C/FFA, but not a full rotation like you have going in Class-R at the moment. That I'll sign to.

(While also observing a non-aggression towards OoA)

Class R didnt have a full rotation, a couple of the R guilds worked with each other to swap nobles but Asgard and bda both went the ynyd route.

[Ella`Ella]

Class R didnt have a full rotation, a couple of the R guilds worked with each other to swap nobles but Asgard and bda both went the ynyd route.

I meant like the general rotation that is happening regarding all raid targets. I actually didn't know nobles were being rotated to any extent.

[Pint]

I meant like the general rotation that is happening regarding all raid targets. I actually didn't know nobles were being rotated to any extent.

Ah I just misread you my bad. Yea class R worked among ourselves to make it work for all of us in the best way we could. I'm confident we could add tmo and ib and still work something out but I'm really hesitant to think the staff want to add nobles to C/R/FFA, or at least that it would happen in a reasonable time frame.

[-Catherin-]

until IB speaks up you are all pretty much going back and forth to no real cause. Id like to hear what IB wants, or if they plan to agree to anything at all. Because regardless either way, we can arrange anything we want but if IB hasn't said anything, then nothing is going to happen.

[Argh]

We'll be happy with nobles rotating by Class-R/Class-C/FFA, ... That I'll sign to.

(While also observing a non-aggression towards OoA)

So, does TMO require the Nobles rotate C/R/FFA in an official capacity (added to raid.php) or is this something we can add to the terms of this agreement sharing the same GM enforced discipline? I think C/R/FFA cycle for noble is something all R guilds have already supported.

[Ella`Ella]

.

[Hokushin]

Can't we just rotate nobles and not kill ooas? Adding all these new rules seems like a pita.

[Pint]

Can't we just rotate nobles and not kill ooas? Adding all these new rules seems like a pita.

Probably not at this point. Asgard is comfortable moving forward on just IB's word to honor the agreement in the same way that we are ok with just accepting the other guild's word. However, since your guild was the one to throw a wrench in the last agreement I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that most of the other R guilds are going to require some form of deterrent to be in place so that y'all cannot simply have a bad day and ruin the agreement again without consequence. As for Tmo's requirement to get this off the ground, I'm guessing you've read up to this point.

[Argh]

The only rule other than not killing OoA is to not kill Noble when raid suspended.

[Ella`Ella]

Zero interest in putting any target on any sort of server wide rotation.

Again, we fully support R/C/FFA for nobles and non-aggression for overseers. However, at this point, I really don't care about the non-aggression for nobles - it would be nice, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I think we'll have more luck focusing on getting R/C/FFA implemented first and then we can add the OoA clause in.

[Argh]

We'll if the nobles were moved to an official C/R/FFA cycle it would officially be a raid mob, thus hands off during raid suspension.

The only question that still remains is whether or not you'll support C/R/FFA cycle enforced as a part of the agreement rather than enforced via raid.php

[Argh]

Lets try to get this moving again.

[Powtle]

The only question that still remains is whether or not you'll support C/R/FFA cycle enforced as a part of the agreement rather than enforced via raid.php

Yea I'm also curious to see TMO's and IB's answer to this.

[Ella`Ella]

Yea I'm also curious to see TMO's and IB's answer to this.

I believe this was my original proposal - thus, TMO supports.

[bktroost]

Nah we are just waiting for Hoku or Getsome...come on IB.

[Argh]

Can we get IB's thoughts here.

[Powtle]

Loving the statu quo it seems.

[Hokushin]

Working on an official post for IB on our stance, will *try to* have by Wednesday! :)

[Argh]

Working on an official post for IB on our stance, will *try to* have by Wednesday! :)

This is good news.

I would recommend that all other guilds review your position on this and make sure that everyone who has already shown support or agreed to this still does so, and if not make your position clear before wednesday.

[Hokushin]

When 3 OOAs are up on isle 4, and a noble is slain, it replaces the oldest OOA with a new one. If you kill the oldest OOA before killing the noble to spawn back the 3rd OOA, does that affect the spawn timer on the nobles?

[Erati]

When 3 OOAs are up on isle 4, and a noble is slain, it replaces the oldest OOA with a new one. If you kill the oldest OOA before killing the noble to spawn back the 3rd OOA, does that affect the spawn timer on the nobles?

You have a few things confused about how the cycle works here I think ( however I may also be confused so Noble experts pls correct me )

There is no 'replacing' the oldest OoA. Overseer does not depop when the corresponding Noble spawns from it being left up.

Also the only time an Overseer spawns is from the death of the 7 day timed Noble. Each Noble you kill in between the 7 day cycle does not spawn a new Overseer. Those can only appear after the once a week Noble is slain.

So if IB was thinking they could shave an Overseer off the pile and then just replace it so the number remains at 3 or 4 that won't work. We can also have more than 4 Overseers up, I am not sure what our max on P99 has had up so far when we tried this. Getting 4 alive at the same time takes over a month of no server resets or asshattery so its quite challenging.

[Hokushin]

Negative. It has been confirmed only 3 OOAs can be spawned at once on p99 by killing Nobles, it has also been confirmed that the oldest OOA is replaced with a new OOA, by seeing the weapons change in the *oldest OOAs hands.

[wycca]

Negative. It has been confirmed only 3 OOAs can be spawned at once on p99 by killing Nobles, it has also been confirmed that the oldest OOA is replaced with a new OOA, by seeing the weapons change in the *oldest OOAs hands.

It's possible that may be true, I know we've seen like 4 or 5 OOA's up before, but it's possible some of those have been from earthquake nobles rather than naturally occuring ones.

[Erati]

Negative. It has been confirmed only 3 OOAs can be spawned at once on p99 by killing Nobles, it has also been confirmed that the oldest OOA is replaced with a new OOA, by seeing the weapons change in the *oldest OOAs hands.

we have def had 4 up at once, I am pretty certain.

I guess we need to not kill Overseer and see what happens :)

[Hokushin]

It's possible that may be true, I know we've seen like 4 or 5 OOA's up before, but it's possible some of those have been from earthquake nobles rather than naturally occuring ones.

I remember a very long time ago you could get more than 3, but then they did some changes or something, and during the last agreement only 3 could spawn. During that time, we tested with 3 nobles using track + splitting to see which one was the oldest before we killed a noble, and noticed that that one would get replaced when noble died.

Given the mechanics, it would make sense to kill the oldest OOA before the noble , and spawn a hand as well with every noble once 3 OOAs are up... giving 2 extra efreetis with each noble.

I don't think it would be wise for GM enforcing on OOA kills considering there is a much more valuable option for the server with people working together, perhaps there is some alternative proposal everyone can agree on that doesn't add excessive rules, or add to the GMs plates of things they have to deal with.

[Ella`Ella]

To echo what Hokushin said,

I don't think it would be wise for GM enforcing on OOA kills considering there is a much more valuable option for the server with people working together, perhaps there is some alternative proposal everyone can agree on that doesn't add excessive rules, or add to the GMs plates of things they have to deal with.

Also, don't repops (non-earthquake) despawn all the additional OOA's?

[Argh]

I don't think it would be wise for GM enforcing on OOA kills considering there is a much more valuable option for the server with people working together, perhaps there is some alternative proposal everyone can agree on that doesn't add excessive rules, or add to the GMs plates of things they have to deal with.

GM enforced punishment is a requirement for some guilds to sign this agreement. This was necessitated from the fall out of the last agreement. If there is no enforcement, there really is no point of an actual agreement, as any guild at any time can just blow it up for whatever reason they see fit.

GMs have volunteered to enforce this agreement so I suspect that they don't see it requiring much effort since all infractions would be pretty clear and penalties have already been laid out.

If, however, it is true that only three Overseers can be up at one time (this is still disputed), then it would make sense to have an exception for allowing the killing the oldest overseer when a fourth is ready to be added rather than negating penalties entirely. The only way we are really going to find out if this is true or not is for everyone to agree not to kill any Overseers until there are 3 up.

Also, don't repops (non-earthquake) despawn all the additional OOA's?

They only despawn when there is a server reset or the zone crashes. Earthquakes just add a new noble and reset the noble timer.

[jpetrick]

Nobles. Please.

[Argh]

BE NOBLE

[Erati]

lets get this going so Taken can screw it up again for the server and spark a rebirth of RnF

[jpetrick]

IB agree to this NAP or I will kidnap Feign.

[jpetrick]

We could be swimming in sky loot you shitheads. Quit being dumb about this.

[Ella`Ella]

I'm sure we could work something out...

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177261

[bktroost]

Well, its not a bad idea to revisit it, considering changes in sky key corpses. Noble will be fairly easy to get to, but OOA and Hand are going to become a much more significant commitment. I thought I read somewhere that the Djinns in sky no longer show what weapon they carry so you won't be able to determine if its even worth the effort in advance.

[jpetrick]

I'm sure we could work something out...

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177261

I promise I won't pull Inny to the zone in. Now leave OoA's up.

[jpetrick]

Bump

[Pint]

Asgard still in favor of OoA agreement.

[Erati]

Asgard still in favor of OoA agreement.

honestly after seeing 185 people in Sky on Saturday we all should consider revisiting this....

A Noble a day keeps the young doctors away.

[bktroost]

You know that AG is in favor of this. We need to revisit this completely to see all the new leadership of various guild's opinion.

[Pan]

Omni's in.

[bktroost]

"can someone proxy and write in raid forum that Europa also supports the OOA agreement? I still don't have access" --Culkasi

[Argh]

Rampage is in support of this agreement. Perhaps everyone should revisit this and submit their objections if they have any.

If there are none, we can work to have this resolved prior to the next Noble.

[Erati]

Terms:

Guilds herein are bound to:

Not kill the Overseer of Air or Hand of Veeshan under any circumstances.
Treat Noble Dojorn, Overseer of Air, and Hand of Veeshan as raid mobs (i.e. hands off during raid suspensions)


Discipline:

If the terms of this agreement are broken by a guild that has agreed to be bound by its terms, after this agreement has been officially ratified, said guild will be subjected to the following discipline:

Suspension from Plane of Sky (this includes the Efreeti cycle) for 1 week per each infraction. (i.e. Killing two Overseers of Air or one Overseer of Air and one Hand of Veeshan yields a two week sky suspension, killing one Overseer of Air yields a one week sky suspension, etc.)


Ratification:

This agreement will be officially enacted once all guilds who currently have a sky slot agree and sign here.

Dissolution:

This agreement will be officially dissolved if a guild outside of this agreement kills an Oversee of Air.

this is the OP. for refresher

[Pint]

this is the OP. for refresher

There is no new blood in this sub forum so we're all aware of what the agreement is, we just need you to tell us if Taken is on board or not.

[Erati]

There is no new blood in this sub forum so we're all aware of what the agreement is, we just need you to tell us if Taken is on board or not.

working on it, pretty sure we are a go with this just had to remind everyone what the agreement was on our boards.

I thought it was neat Argh was the OP which was another reason for the quote ;)

feels like ages ago

[Pint]

working on it, pretty sure we are a go with this just had to remind everyone what the agreement was on our boards.

I thought it was neat Argh was the OP which was another reason for the quote ;)

feels like ages ago

Thats good news hopefully.

Sunday - AM - TMO
Monday - Europa, PM - Indignation
Tuesday - Rampage
Wednesday - AM - Omni, PM - Divinity
Thursday - Taken
Friday - BDA
Saturday - AM/ early PM - Azure Guard, Late PM - Asgard

We need tmo, divinity, bda and taken to weigh in. Looks like everyone else is on board atm.

[arsenalpow]

Fine with it.

[Erati]

I worry about being able to keep Overseers up with Hyjal and 'rogue' TMO snipers around

http://i.imgur.com/AVkxMu2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/yA01Urn.jpg

This was the scene before our morning clear ( we have had a few Gorgs sniped randomly in the wee hours before anyone is awake and were wondering who was killing those )

Hyjal might be the biggest obstacle in an agreement like this, esp if he gets support from TMO

edit: apparently the guy from Rampage was being summoned by Gorg and was also assisting. Lord Bob, Rampage, TMO morning Sky snipers.


Back to topic- would the Nobles be split "Your Day, Your Noble"? - Class R rotated the non- TMO / non- IB day Nobles in the past- that was when we had a working rotation and communication on our R forums was flowing with shared documents etc.

I dont think that can happen at this time, and frankly since we are re-visiting this, its greedy for TMO and Rampage ( if they stick to IB's sentiment from the past ) to refuse to rotate them in the manner every other guild volunteered to.

At this point we need to just have a flat out rotation on them to be the most fair. Some guilds have Sky days, others have time slots - we cant keep YDYN fair, esp when server resets place Noble on one special day and he kinda lives there for a long time ( yes I know he begins to spawn daily, but he originates on that initial day )

I would propose once this is ratified we /random for positions, have a spreadsheet wizard from a couple guilds keep track and we flat out rotate them.

[jpetrick]

Slow your roll.

Right we we are just asking people to agree to leave OoA's up. When everyone gets tired of porting up daily to click air we can talk about rotating them.

[Pan]

Does Doljobob still want a Sky slot? That may be a good start.

Cloki - Omni

[Erati]

Slow your roll.

Right we we are just asking people to agree to leave OoA's up. When everyone gets tired of porting up daily to click air we can talk about rotating them.

?

What guilds do with the Nobles was always an issue with this type of agreement. I am just bringing it up bc Taken's officers were curious what method we were going to use to distribute the Nobles with the Class R rotation no longer existing and most Sky days shared.

Taken is fine with not doing click fests- thats no problem - but we are curious about the cluster F that goes along with sharing and upkeeping Noble distribution.

We are not going to to be greedy with it, we opted to rotate Nobles with Class R in the past and we will do it again no problem.

[jpetrick]

Current agreement proposal - don't kill OoAs, click air. Seems pretty clear.

[Ella`Ella]

I think I said this in the last post, that TMO will agree to not kill Overseers of Air, but we will not sign the agreement which binds us to it at the moment.

[Erati]

Current agreement proposal - don't kill OoAs, click air. Seems pretty clear.

The whole point of a Noble agreement is to NOT click air vs 200 people.

Taken is agreeing to not kill Overseers with the hopes that the click fests end and we can stop wasting so many Sky ports ( I think all guilds can agree to that ). If all Indignation wants is to keep Overseers up so that we click fest everyday then no TY, one click fest a week is plenty

Taken is ready for a true agreement to be in place if we want to rid the server of this click fest ( 185 people were up there last week Elzhi )


also I completely understand that Noble distribution and the 'Dont Kill Overseer' are two separate entities and agreements. I clearly remember a big problem in the past with getting an agreement as simple as "Dont kill OoA" in place due to the complicated Noble sharing.

I am fine with agreeing to this initial proposal by Argh with the good faith understanding that some form of Noble sharing will be also coming in the future. Just trying to make our position clear.

[jpetrick]

You do realize that you don't have to port up for every noble. Just agree to not kill OoAs and click air. If you want to work on a rotation after that fine but get a goddamn agreement in place first. I literally can't stand how fucking little we are able to get done because people like you won't move the ball forward an inch.

This thread is for the Noble agreement. Make a thread for your rotation system AFTER we have agreed to leave OoAs up. Is that too much to ask of you?

[Ella`Ella]

Play nice, you two.

[Erati]

You do realize that you don't have to port up for every noble. Just agree to not kill OoAs and click air. If you want to work on a rotation after that fine but get a goddamn agreement in place first. I literally can't stand how fucking little we are able to get done because people like you won't move the ball forward an inch.

This thread is for the Noble agreement. Make a thread for your rotation system AFTER we have agreed to leave OoAs up. Is that too much to ask of you?

Not sure why every post you make is so hostile, I already said we were fine with Overseer thing so long as we are reasonable and adult about this IE have some kind of good faith understanding that this is not to create a click fest for every day of the week.

I dont think ANYONE wants that Elzhi.

and of course we wouldnt port up for every Noble but its beyond dumb to jump through these hoops to create extra Nobles for the server and yet have to click versus 100 people just to see them. No thanks, that doesnt sound like anything better than what we currently have.

if we want real change lets put on some big boy pants and make change.

[jpetrick]

You aren't going to get Class C to agree to a rotation right now. Just pass the agreement so the server can benefit from more nobles. Why is this so hard for you to do?

[Erati]

You aren't going to get Class C to agree to a rotation right now. Just pass the agreement so the server can benefit from more nobles. Why is this so hard for you to do?

What makes them above the rest of the server to not be willing to share when it takes an entire server's effort to create these extra spawns?

I dont understand why you are boxing this agreement into a corner before its even had a chance to breathe by stating 'Class C won't be rotating anything' when you neither speak for Class C guilds nor actively participate in most of these click fests with them.

Read my posts, I am on your side here but just trying to make this into something that is tangible and real rather than status quo agreement

[jpetrick]

No. You are essentially creating a filibuster right now.

[Erati]

I think I said this in the last post, that TMO will agree to not kill Overseers of Air, but we will not sign the agreement which binds us to it at the moment.

this is more of a filibuster than anything I wrote

Taken is the not the guild you need to convince to get this agreement done.

Shift your focus on the guilds that:

A. Havnt commented - Lord Bob, Divinity etc
B. Guilds that have clearly said they agree to not agreeing to an agreement ( lol mouthful )

[jpetrick]

I'll take that over what we have now. What Unbrella said is at least an improvement over the current situation.

[jpetrick]

I see Divinity signed already. Has their position changed?

[Ella`Ella]

Why would I sign an agreement that allows server staff to punish me for breaking it when I can just as easily happily follow the agreement you guys want and always reserve the right to break the agreement consequence free (not that we would)?

Keep in mind, Erati - TMO never broke the agreement either time. We have Taken and IB to thank for that. So when criticizing, please shift your focus away from the Class-C guild that willingly respected the agreement to begin with.

[jpetrick]

Why would I sign an agreement that allows server staff to punish me for breaking it when I can just as easily happily follow the agreement you guys want and always reserve the right to break the agreement consequence free (not that we would)?

Keep in mind, Erati - TMO never broke the agreement either time. We have Taken and IB to thank for that. So when criticizing, please shift your focus away from the Class-C guild that willingly respected the agreement to begin with.

Fuckin' a, there we go. I'll take Unbrella's word. He has never given me problems when I had to interact with him and I will put my confidence in his guild upholding the agreement as long as he is an officer.

[jpetrick]

I don't see the big deal about needing staff punishment enforced. The sky rotation is not staff enforced. At worst we keep what we have. At best we get more nobles.
Argh could you perhaps edit the first post to word the agreement in line with TMO's stance? I would rather have something in place even if it is not bound by the staff. If everyone can agree to that then we can move forward.

[Pint]

I am honestly not trying to take a jab at hyjal but in the past year of making noise the best he has managed is a maestro, why is it a concern that he might kill an overseer of air? Hyjal needs to take the a-teams Sunday evening slot and give his guild something consistent, signing this agreement is in his best interests and even if he refuses he is not a threat at this time.

While I also want to push this through, I am not going to take umbrella or tmo's word for anything. They need to get on board with the agreement or it needs to be tweaked and revoted on until everyone agrees. The easiest action is obviously for them just to agree to this proposal. A 1 week suspension from sky isn't even a punishment for tmo at this time, umbrella is simply in here making trouble.

[Erati]

I dont think we need Staff suspending people for raid targets over Noble, with the current practice of treating each mob as its own entity rather than raid suspending for an entire cycle, punishment for these would b messy

also should this agreement happen n then b subsequently broken I doubt we would ever really b able to salvage this to retry so punishments would b a moot pt

[Pint]

Ok well then can Argh please reword the agreement and possibly start us a fresh thread for voting? This is obviously something that benefits from being passed sooner rather than later.

[Ella`Ella]

unbrella is simply in here making trouble.

If I were in here to make trouble, I would have just said "Absolutely not" and withdrawn. Or, I'd tell you that TMO will break any agreement you come up with.

I'm honestly not interested in GMs being anymore involved than they already are or coming up with new rules that we're bound to indefinitely, hence our position. Sometimes circumstances change and you need to be flexible. At the rate things have been, Dolj will break the agreement and TMO will end up getting disbanded for it.

Also, as your rules are written, there is nothing stopping me (or any other guild, for that matter) from inviting a few people from Class-R, making a couple more officers and calling myself a whole new guild and breaking it free and clear. Or, create an alt guild to break it.

And, if you make it so that every guild has to oblige to the agreement, it's no longer a player agreement it's a staff-mandate. If a new guild were to form with a bunch of randoms from a few other guilds, let's call it <Transatlantic>, and kill an OoA, you're back up shit's creek with your agreement. Or, if <Transatlantic> were a legit new guild and wanted to come to sky to kill an OoA, they'd have to request to be put in rotation at the end of the list (if we went the rotation route) or have to be guaranteed a sky day/time for YNYD.

I'm interested in more nobles, you're interested in more nobles. Until you can come up with something better, you'll have to take me at my word - which so far has a pretty strong credibility when it comes to sky - there are several guild leaders that can confirm that. Like I said earlier, you should shift the focus away from TMO who never broke the agreement to begin with.

Also, thanks for the kind word, Jpet.

[Erati]

I think we have all experienced the crappiness of the 200 person click fest enough to ease up on the Staff intervention when it comes to this agreement

The reason it was put in there was bc the previous agreement had zero teeth to it so one measly bad day could result in the end of a harmonious agreement bc of 1 guild. We just wanted to make sure the guild that thinks about breaking this maybe thinks twice if the punishment was severe enough.

We are past that tho, its been a while and maybe the time off has lessened the urgency to make sure the offending guild is punished but rather get more Noble spawns for the server.

[Argh]

Argh please reword the agreement and possibly start us a fresh thread for voting? This is obviously something that benefits from being passed sooner rather than later.

This should be simple enough:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1826170#post1826170