Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[Lime]

The whole point of a pvp server is for players to settle issues in game through player vs player combat not the petition quest afterwards. The pvp here is reminiscent of tattling children crying to mommy, and I have to wonder how the staff can look at what any of the tattling children have to say with any merit.

The pvp here comes without any risk of penalty, corpse camping, or bind camping. It is the lowest risk and lowest reward game-play seen on any eq pvp server to date, and it is pretty obvious why most of the pvp players have moved on and the server is mostly blue refugees. The sad state of affairs that even pvping on one of the new WoW emulators you have the ability to corpse camp people that deserve it where as here you cannot even yellow text someone twice in 30 minutes without people screaming for your account to be banned.

Velious release will further show the ridiculous nature of current policies as you will be unable to deny access to zones like Temple of Veeshan by holding Western Wastes as people can simply call LNS for a force of 7 or more after 1 death and waltz past your blockade and into ToV to collect pixels with friends without even a scratch under your current policy.

This is made worse by the fact that a defending force in ToV and an offensive force in Western Wastes is a stalemate that is very common in Velious and the offensive force can continually engage the defensive force with no risk to themselves as they can call LNS at any time for their raid, take a 1 hour time out outside while they rebuff and reinforce, and engage you again further into your NTOV clear.

On a live server the first time a guild lost in pvp they would get corpse camped all night while taking screenshots for the forum unless the guild leaders came to terms. Here you are going to be forced to let the enemy waltz out of your zone after 1 death to take other raid targets, or to reinforce in the next zone. When you zone into a raid zone to fight over dragons the threat of body to pixel separation should be a concern, but here people are more concerned if they got the enemy rogue accidentally agroing a mob on video so they can petition it.

The high risk high reward pvp is what made games like UO, EQ Rallos Zek, Shadowbane, and Eve great games. Everyone remembers times in games like this where they took great pixel losses or gains that actually mattered. Or that time someone was so angry they corpse camped someone for a week straight. Here the policy is to eliminate the amount of loss someone can take through LNS/PNP policies, instead of actually having the player responsible for not putting himself in the situation in the first place.

In conclusion, I hope the staff and community takes a look at their current policies, and the future of Red as a PVP server, because I feel it is on a path to mediocrity.

[Recycled Children]

I refuse to read this. Get to your point faster.

[daasgoot]

remove pnp

[Kringe]

Pretty good post and spot on, the community could take a lot from this. So much forumquesting... Anyone and everyone gets at the chance to get someones account banned for training/LNS whatever... It totally goes against what we all originally logged in here to play and do..

[Recycled Children]

remove pnp

Voted yes.

[Nirgon]

saw text did not read

[Doors]

Good post pretty accurate. PVP generally devolves into someone calling LNS on a throw away account or naked cleric/druid and if they get killed again it goes directly into the petition forums.

[Widan]

This is a very easy fix. If you call LNS it is should also be applied to all adjacent zones. So for example you call LNS in Dreadlands, you are unable to play in DL, KC, FM, FV, etc. for one hour. So if you call LNS in WW you cannot play in ToV. If this doesn't work, i.e. a force calls LNS in WW, waits one hour, then zones into ToV, then we can simply up the duration they are locked out of zones for. 2, 3, 4 hours, whatever.

[Colgate]

agreed

[Bazia]

give it up I got reported like 3000 times for pnp violations while just daily pvping, staff would rather have 400 players from blue to have a second raid sandbox then have a 110 person pvp server

[iruinedyourday]

remove pnp

++

[quido]

It sure would be nice to have some clearly-laid-out rules instead of this subjective BS. It seems like saying the firegiant word has shifted from bannable offense to non-bannable offense and back like a dozen times.

Saying the n-word in a tell to a guy who has called you the n-word no less than 100 times can get you suspended when he petitions you for this after the fact because you quit his guild.

It's absurd.

You could do yourself and everyone a favor by just coming up with some firm rules and sticking to them, no matter how you feel.

[Grimjaw]

read the tldr part. we're way past mediocre already, buddy

[Tassador]

give it up I got reported like 3000 times for pnp violations while just daily pvping, staff would rather have 400 players from blue to have a second raid sandbox then have a 110 person pvp server

+1

[Larken]

The whole point of a pvp server is for players to settle issues in game through player vs player combat not the petition quest afterwards. The pvp here is reminiscent of tattling children crying to mommy, and I have to wonder how the staff can look at what any of the tattling children have to say with any merit.

The pvp here comes without any risk of penalty, corpse camping, or bind camping. It is the lowest risk and lowest reward game-play seen on any eq pvp server to date, and it is pretty obvious why most of the pvp players have moved on and the server is mostly blue refugees. The sad state of affairs that even pvping on one of the new WoW emulators you have the ability to corpse camp people that deserve it where as here you cannot even yellow text someone twice in 30 minutes without people screaming for your account to be banned.

Velious release will further show the ridiculous nature of current policies as you will be unable to deny access to zones like Temple of Veeshan by holding Western Wastes as people can simply call LNS for a force of 7 or more after 1 death and waltz past your blockade and into ToV to collect pixels with friends without even a scratch under your current policy.

This is made worse by the fact that a defending force in ToV and an offensive force in Western Wastes is a stalemate that is very common in Velious and the offensive force can continually engage the defensive force with no risk to themselves as they can call LNS at any time for their raid, take a 1 hour time out outside while they rebuff and reinforce, and engage you again further into your NTOV clear.

On a live server the first time a guild lost in pvp they would get corpse camped all night while taking screenshots for the forum unless the guild leaders came to terms. Here you are going to be forced to let the enemy waltz out of your zone after 1 death to take other raid targets, or to reinforce in the next zone. When you zone into a raid zone to fight over dragons the threat of body to pixel separation should be a concern, but here people are more concerned if they got the enemy rogue accidentally agroing a mob on video so they can petition it.

The high risk high reward pvp is what made games like UO, EQ Rallos Zek, Shadowbane, and Eve great games. Everyone remembers times in games like this where they took great pixel losses or gains that actually mattered. Or that time someone was so angry they corpse camped someone for a week straight. Here the policy is to eliminate the amount of loss someone can take through LNS/PNP policies, instead of actually having the player responsible for not putting himself in the situation in the first place.

In conclusion, I hope the staff and community takes a look at their current policies, and the future of Red as a PVP server, because I feel it is on a path to mediocrity.

Well said. GM's should let players settle their own dramas, and only actively look for cheaters. They shouldn't even interfere with bad language as you always have the option to ignore someone and/or filter the words out. The more rules there are the messier it becomes. Let the server rules be "the rules of the jungle."

[red99playing]

@Lime

Good post, this topic needs staff attention surely.


The whole point of a pvp server is for players to settle issues in game through player vs player combat not the petition quest afterwards. The pvp here is reminiscent of tattling children crying to mommy, and I have to wonder how the staff can look at what any of the tattling children have to say with any merit.

The current stated rules were put into place to allow new players to jump into red and establish themselves without having been on the box since it's release. They're also in place to keep the server from having a high turn over of grieved to death people, leaving only one established guild. Both quite necessary to server health, they are an arguably fair list of rules that are just poorly enforced and require some situational clarification.

The situation is that the rules put in place require a heavy and/or consistent staff on red. The vitriol and pedantry slung at the volunteer gms I can imagine would make any of the csr hang out on blue.

The solution to maintain the current rule set with minimal csr resources probably involves ruling with fear via heavy handed account banning. At this point being in the position of reviewing ban repeal pleas and accounts associated with them for every infraction would cycle back in legit players while netting all the rmt/boxers/dupers/grievers thus keeping the petition questing to a minimum. The backlog would shrink while cutting out heavy offenders.

Also something to note in this case: There is a good reason for the law in the states that punishes those that attempt to falsely accuse others.

Hypothetical for you Lime:

Imagine the saddest nerd you can, with a neckbeard so thick it's corrected his slouching. now imagine you just started on red and this guy is already farming dragons with his fellow nerds and decides on a whim to grief you off the box because he doesn't want new players on the server. whats to stop him and his majority of the server guild that doesn't have a pnp?

[Rednaros]

Im pretty sure you cant call LNS and walk into an adjacent zone, i thought that you had to leave the zone and ALL adjacent zones for 1 hour

[krazyGlue]

Remove the pnp and put back exp loss

[heartbrand]

Before PnP Nihilum was almost never contested because losing meant a demoralizing corpse camp for days until people quit. It made PVP less likely to occur. OP is retarded. If you want to see less PvP then remove the PnP.

[heartbrand]

Having said that, it could use tweaking and non selective enforcement.

[Buhbuh]

I'm gonna assume Lime said something like,

There's 0 risk/ reward in mass PvP.

The whole point of the GMs implementing this current fast/ easy LNS policy for all parties involved was because they had a theory it would create more PvP fights over all of the targets in Norrath. It was a theory, and it didn't work. All it did was disenfranchise the winning side of any battle, letting people who came at the more organized side have free reign over Norrath mobs.

Right now on Red, if a losing side isn't doing well in mass PvP, they plug their buffs before everyone in the guild dies, call Force LNS, and leave unscathed to go get other targets.

It takes one engage on another guild for people to realize they are out-classed, out-manned and out-gunned. This means they avoid that guild at all costs.

It's generally blue as fuck, because what the winning side is rewarded with is having their mobs sniped around Norrath by a clearly lesser force.

If Azrael and all their allied guilds stomped us into the ground at KC last week, I would've wanted to be corpse camped. I would've expected it.

That was half the excitement in EQ - if you came at a massive force in PvP, you better fucking win.

The only way this will get changed without GMs involved is if all leaders of all guilds on the raid scene come together and agree to something, then present it to GMs unanimously.

Right now it's a real terrible rule set.

I don't agree that it should be wild-west shit, because LNS is something that should be able to be utilized.

But when it comes to mass PvP, there has to be a change. A good middle ground between what the rules are now and sitting on corpses all day even with LNS called is a lockout period for guilds who call LNS.

Currently, a losing guild is able to recover their bodies before the winning guild recuperates and kills the mob they were fighting over. A 30 minute lockout period from the contested areas before being able to LNS is ideal in Kunark.

Velious presents a whole new problem. Raids last far longer. Lockout for thirty minutes isn't really that big of a deal. I don't like not being able to sit on corpses after demolishing a raid force in Velious. I feel like if you made the decision to come at a raid force, it better have been the right one. That's the main point. If you die in ToV, you can immediately scoot and go kill Tormax. Sorry, but that's bullshit. You deserve to be fucked for losing. And yet that's the Norrath we live in right now.

2-3 hour lockouts in Velious raid zones after losing/ calling LNS is more of a middle ground.

We can clear all of Kunark in five hours if well organized, so 30 minute lockouts there isn't that strange of a request.

Velious raid zones can take hours and hours to clear. Regardless, there needs to be repercussions for thinking you can take on a raid force and losing, and there needs to be some benefit to winning.

[Tassador]

Hypothetical for you Lime:

Imagine the saddest nerd you can, with a neckbeard so thick it's corrected his slouching. now imagine you just started on red and this guy is already farming dragons with his fellow nerds and decides on a whim to grief you off the box because he doesn't want new players on the server. whats to stop him and his majority of the server guild that doesn't have a pnp?

@ red99: Man you're one pathetic loser!

[Luniz]

The whole point of a pvp server is for players to settle issues in game through player vs player combat not the petition quest afterwards. The pvp here is reminiscent of tattling children crying to mommy, and I have to wonder how the staff can look at what any of the tattling children have to say with any merit.

The pvp here comes without any risk of penalty, corpse camping, or bind camping. It is the lowest risk and lowest reward game-play seen on any eq pvp server to date, and it is pretty obvious why most of the pvp players have moved on and the server is mostly blue refugees. The sad state of affairs that even pvping on one of the new WoW emulators you have the ability to corpse camp people that deserve it where as here you cannot even yellow text someone twice in 30 minutes without people screaming for your account to be banned.

Velious release will further show the ridiculous nature of current policies as you will be unable to deny access to zones like Temple of Veeshan by holding Western Wastes as people can simply call LNS for a force of 7 or more after 1 death and waltz past your blockade and into ToV to collect pixels with friends without even a scratch under your current policy.

This is made worse by the fact that a defending force in ToV and an offensive force in Western Wastes is a stalemate that is very common in Velious and the offensive force can continually engage the defensive force with no risk to themselves as they can call LNS at any time for their raid, take a 1 hour time out outside while they rebuff and reinforce, and engage you again further into your NTOV clear.

On a live server the first time a guild lost in pvp they would get corpse camped all night while taking screenshots for the forum unless the guild leaders came to terms. Here you are going to be forced to let the enemy waltz out of your zone after 1 death to take other raid targets, or to reinforce in the next zone. When you zone into a raid zone to fight over dragons the threat of body to pixel separation should be a concern, but here people are more concerned if they got the enemy rogue accidentally agroing a mob on video so they can petition it.

The high risk high reward pvp is what made games like UO, EQ Rallos Zek, Shadowbane, and Eve great games. Everyone remembers times in games like this where they took great pixel losses or gains that actually mattered. Or that time someone was so angry they corpse camped someone for a week straight. Here the policy is to eliminate the amount of loss someone can take through LNS/PNP policies, instead of actually having the player responsible for not putting himself in the situation in the first place.

In conclusion, I hope the staff and community takes a look at their current policies, and the future of Red as a PVP server, because I feel it is on a path to mediocrity.

lol

you and your 4 man crew not playing here are "most of the pvpers that moved on"?

also you don't understand the LNS on this server

[Lime]

@Lime

Imagine the saddest nerd you can, with a neckbeard so thick it's corrected his slouching. now imagine you just started on red and this guy is already farming dragons with his fellow nerds and decides on a whim to grief you off the box because he doesn't want new players on the server. whats to stop him and his majority of the server guild that doesn't have a pnp?

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

[Rednaros]

Tldr, u contesting or not?

[Swish]

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

good post, 5*

[HippoNipple]

OP is trying to make changes to a policy he doesn't even understand.

You can't use LNS as a means to progress. If GMs are present they would ban someone for trying to do this. Even if the ones calling LnS somehow found a loop hole Sirken has made it clear that he doesn't give a shit and will still throw out bans if the spirit of the rules are fucked with.

People that read the rules in detail and base their play on what scum bag tactics they think they can get away with don't get it and the server is lucky Sirken doesn't' give a shit about loop holes and will just ban these people.

[Pseudechis]

Voted yes.

Voted yes

[HalflingWarrior]

GMS gonna have their hands full on Blue when Velious comes. Red99 gonna be wild west style

[Swish]

GMS gonna have their hands full on Blue when Velious comes. Red99 gonna be wild west style

North Ro on opening night needs to be recorded for server history.

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/w/wild-west/graphics-wild-west-115662.gif

[Lime]

Before PnP Nihilum was almost never contested because losing meant a demoralizing corpse camp for days until people quit. It made PVP less likely to occur. OP is retarded. If you want to see less PvP then remove the PnP.

It is the difference between playing poker for pennies, and playing the game with real stakes on the line. Yes you will play poker less often, but the games will be much more epic and exciting. Do you think anyone would care about the World Series of Poker if they played for fun with no stakes to be lost or won?

[rollin5k]

The fact that the giant zerg and a few fungi griefing sickos that have been here since day one are the only ones complaining does theyre on the right track. Although the rules are a little complicated and subjective.

Since yellow text was introduced the most PvP I've seen had been in the last month or so.

[Buhbuh]

The fact that the giant zerg and a few fungi griefing sickos that have been here since day one are the only ones complaining does theyre on the right track. Although the rules are a little complicated and subjective.

Since yellow text was introduced the most PvP I've seen had been in the last month or so.

LNS in a non raid context is fine the way it is.

In a raid context, it's terrible.

[krazyGlue]

Boohoo the rules don't benefit me . Waaah

[heartbrand]

It is the difference between playing poker for pennies, and playing the game with real stakes on the line. Yes you will play poker less often, but the games will be much more epic and exciting. Do you think anyone would care about the World Series of Poker if they played for fun with no stakes to be lost or won?

wut? do u even play on this server? you want even LESS pvp than there already is? the stakes are the same, the mob. we had it "your" way for 3 years. we had about 5-7 mass pvp fights in those 3 years. gtfo.

[Zalaerian]

While I'm for removal of PNP, I can easily see how it protects newer/under geared players from just getting greifed out. I'd be for a middle ground where if your taged empire/az/friends, or participating w said guilds, pnp does not apply to you, tho you will need to respect pnp if pvping an non-waved pnp guild

[magician]

Please delete thread. Op is a known world geometry exploiter and thus his ideas have no value.


Edit: thank you

[webrunner5]

saw text did not read

Agree, my attention span is not that long anymore. How about just one short paragraph and that's it. :D I mean how complex can a 16 year old game be??

[Buhbuh]

Boohoo the rules don't benefit me . Waaah

Nope. They benefit you.

[Lime]

wut? do u even play on this server? you want even LESS pvp than there already is? the stakes are the same, the mob. we had it "your" way for 3 years. we had about 5-7 mass pvp fights in those 3 years. gtfo.

Three years of 40 pop and Nihilum raiding Sundays and logging off tends to do that.

While I appreciate your feedback, if you actually read the PNP/LNS policy I think even you would agree how much of a mess it is.

When you play on red you agree to the blue PNP + the Red PNP contracts, which are so horribly vague and open to player interpretation. The staff can basically ban your account for doing any sort of pvp or pve. Under the current ruleset contesting a spawn could be considered zone disruption as players are trying to raid and you are disrupting it. Your account is subject to the staff member who responds personal opinion on the matter, as the rules are so vague that it is impossible to fairly enforce.


All of the rules stated in the Project 1999 Play Nice Policy still apply to Project 1999 Red PvP, with the following exceptions:


8. You may not disrupt the normal playability of a zone or area.

Zone/Area Disruption is defined as any activity designed to harm or inconvenience a number of groups rather than a specific player or group of players. This includes, but is not limited to::

-Monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area.

- Deliberately blocking a doorway or narrow area so other players cannot get past.

Basically any sort of pvp can forfeit your account under current policy, enforced, or otherwise. This is a pretty funny ruleset for a pvp server, if you ask me. Flame me all you want but I'm just pointing out facts.

[HalflingWarrior]

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

Problem is that reputation means NOTHING here. There is no ostracizing a players poor behavior. In fact being the smelliest douche you can while remaining within the "ruleset" is openly encouraged.

Its the same thing on blue. People on live didn't act this way because your characters reputation meant something; and you didn't have 6 or 7 level 60 toons to fall back on

[Colgate]

reputation does matter; why do you think no one wants to play with Lite?

[dillweed]

This reminds me of the velious NRO raft cockblock which won't happen... but should.

IMO they should turn LnS off for just NRO for that week so we can see some real nasty shit.

Instead everyone gets to go after one LnS call.

I personally will be getting CoH'd onto the raft before it hits zoneline and moonwalk my way into velious without LnS like a boss though. (Not even sure if that's possible but it sounds pro)

[fred schnarf]

already 5 pages of waa

im going to side with chewie when you die in pvp you should recieve a large electric shock and be forced to logout for 24 hours

[Luniz]

itt: nonfactor stomping feet

[vouss]

Agree with OP meaningful pvp > more pvp

[Samsung]

reputation does matter; why do you think no one wants to play with Lite?

Plenty of people want to play with him.

[Rednaros]

Plenty of people want to play with him.

Only people who dont have options , aka sektor, brobb,

[Guido]

While I'm for removal of PNP, I can easily see how it protects newer/under geared players from just getting greifed out. I'd be for a middle ground where if your taged empire/az/friends, or participating w said guilds, pnp does not apply to you, tho you will need to respect pnp if pvping an non-waved pnp guild

I like this

pvp is why we play red - for a new player it should be in effect

for higher end guilds - pnp should be removed

good thoughts ksah

[Guide.Chroma]

This is made worse by the fact that a defending force in ToV and an offensive force in Western Wastes is a stalemate that is very common in Velious and the offensive force can continually engage the defensive force with no risk to themselves as they can call LNS at any time for their raid, take a 1 hour time out outside while they rebuff and reinforce, and engage you again further into your NTOV clear.

The lockout affects any zones in which large fighting/deaths occurred. "In large scale PvP there is no limit to the number of zones a force can be locked out of. If a fight took place across multiple zones the lockout will apply to all zones a PvP related death occurred in."

I'm not saying LNS is perfect, and if R99 was just being started I would advocate against it, mostly for the community building reasons above. However, since it's been a part of the creation of the culture of R99, taking it away would decimate the population and general enjoyment. Twinks who are "the slayers of virgins" are celebrated in the larger circles of R99.

I don't think straight removal of LNS is the answer, but there are definitely changes that could be made. It's supposed to be a tradeoff for the scooter, caused by the lockout. Perhaps one possibility is increasing the duration, or allowing the victor to name the zone (likely more important for guild vs guild engagements)?

I think it's ideal to have meaningful PvP, without punishing people that aren't twinked beyond reason in the lower levels. I wouldn't expect the red community to step up to bat for that.

[Guido]

While I'm for removal of PNP, I can easily see how it protects newer/under geared players from just getting greifed out. I'd be for a middle ground where if your taged empire/az/friends, or participating w said guilds, pnp does not apply to you, tho you will need to respect pnp if pvping an non-waved pnp guild

chroma I think this could be the best way

limit pnp to only new players say sub 50 or something like that - or even depending on tagged guilds

[heartbrand]

Absolutely mind boggling that people other than Empire would be in favor of removing LNS. If you can't see how LNS is a huge help to competing guilds I don't know what to tell you. The people fucked by the removal of PNP are guilds like Fresh, who now if they contest which will likely end up in defeat, be corpse camped for hours on end with no ability to move to other targets. A couple of demoralizing defeats like that without the ability to get your corpse, and watch the Empire apps flow in and the people moving back to blue.

[Guido]

ok so corpse camp all day - just wasting your own time lolol

and if you think ally guilds wont come slay you

think again lol

[Colgate]

you tried slaying us with 130 people on sunday and got trashed

brain just as smaller

[hatelore]

Umm, you guys tried that last night and that ended up in corpses all the way from Fear portal to inside Rathe mountains. lawl. But anywho...

[Guide.Chroma]

chroma I think this could be the best way

limit pnp to only new players say sub 50 or something like that - or even depending on tagged guilds

Absolutely mind boggling that people other than Empire would be in favor of removing LNS. If you can't see how LNS is a huge help to competing guilds I don't know what to tell you. The people fucked by the removal of PNP are guilds like Fresh, who now if they contest which will likely end up in defeat, be corpse camped for hours on end with no ability to move to other targets. A couple of demoralizing defeats like that without the ability to get your corpse, and watch the Empire apps flow in and the people moving back to blue.

That's essentially what I think. If we had two equal forces, then removal of PnP at that level would be fine (also it would have to be level based over guild, because nerds would just run guildless because teamspeak). LNS gives forces like Fresh & pals to contest and learn instead of staying back because they are more than likely to lose. No matter what other benefits, I'd be extremely reluctant to endorse something that would lead to more monoplisation of content.

You also don't need to park your main force to corpse camp, and in the long war it isn't a waste of time. Players constantly eating player made suspensions on their characters would whittle at any underdog. Your veterans would stay, sure, but I question how many members of either side would actually stomach it.

Again, it isn't a waste of time to camp a corpse if you enjoy doing it. That's videogames.

[Guido]

I totally agree with you chroma

I think it sounds great and pras to ksah for the idea

but what lvl should it limit, say once you ding 55+ pnp no longer applies - but then how does everyone know these said levels

a code might need to be put in or something - not sure the best way

[Guide.Chroma]

I totally agree with you chroma

I think it sounds great and pras to ksah for the idea

but what lvl should it limit, say once you ding 55+ pnp no longer applies - but then how does everyone know these said levels

a code might need to be put in or something - not sure the best way

You uh....you might want to read the post where I disagree with you again.

[hatelore]

lawl

[krazyGlue]

You uh....you might want to read the post where I disagree with you again.

Haha

[Guido]

ah didn't see the two equal forces part

but the alliance combined is an equal force

so what you're really trying to say is merge lol - to have 2 same sized guilds

is that right or am I missing something here lol - with 2 equal sized guilds - this idea of sub 55 removal of pvp is possible?

[krazyGlue]

ah didn't see the two equal forces part

but the alliance combined is an equal force

so what you're really trying to say is merge lol - to have 2 same sized guilds

is that right or am I missing something here lol

Voted no

[Guido]

but now we run into the same problem we witnessed this passed sunday

these two giant forces aren't capable of fighting over a mob boss at this current state of the server

any plans to upgrade the server so massive fights are still possible?

[Littlegyno 13.0]

You uh....you might want to read the post where I disagree with you again.

i like dis dood.

[Guide.Chroma]

ah didn't see the two equal forces part

but the alliance combined is an equal force

so what you're really trying to say is merge lol - to have 2 same sized guilds

is that right or am I missing something here lol - with 2 equal sized guilds - this idea of sub 55 removal of pvp is possible?

Size isn't the entire problem. Gear, the types of members, and expertise in general aren't equal between the two. It'd be like throwing class R guilds into C, sure they might seem prepared to kill the targets, but there's a whole other layer of (petitionquest) skills that they haven't needed, nor want to face.

IF(and note that's a big if) such a level system were to be set in place I would say level 60 (because I believe that the level 60 range is only other 60's?) and large scale engagements would be outside LNS. It still doesn't really sit well with me, since sanctioned corpse camping is likely to create more tears than LNS does.

For Red, I think LNS is necessary even as a necessary evil. I think FFA in general is a flawed system, but that's an entirely different issue. I'll keep the level limit idea in mind as I watch and learn more about Red, but right now I really don't think it would end well.

[Zalaerian]

I totally agree with you chroma

I think it sounds great and pras to ksah for the idea

but what lvl should it limit, say once you ding 55+ pnp no longer applies - but then how does everyone know these said levels

a code might need to be put in or something - not sure the best way

Not everyone wants "hard mode" pvp and would rather the casual pvp. By joining a guild instead, you are voluntarily waving pnp

[Guide.Chroma]

but now we run into the same problem we witnessed this passed sunday

these two giant forces aren't capable of fighting over a mob boss at this current state of the server

any plans to upgrade the server so massive fights are still possible?

I'm almost certain now that was caused by you nerds zoning in and out en masse. Fight 100 v 100 in open field if you want a good fight. If it happens again in that situation, then the priority gets a lot higher.

[FaithlessKR]

I'm almost certain now that was caused by you nerds zoning in and out en masse. Fight 100 v 100 in open field if you want a good fight. If it happens again in that situation, then the priority gets a lot higher.

The same desyncing that happened in kc is the same kind of desyncing when someone is training the entire fear zone and runs it too close to the raid. Whether or not people are zoning in is not the issue, the zone just couldn't handle that many people in that small of an area.

[Buhbuh]

The lockout affects any zones in which large fighting/deaths occurred. "In large scale PvP there is no limit to the number of zones a force can be locked out of. If a fight took place across multiple zones the lockout will apply to all zones a PvP related death occurred in."

I'm not saying LNS is perfect, and if R99 was just being started I would advocate against it, mostly for the community building reasons above. However, since it's been a part of the creation of the culture of R99, taking it away would decimate the population and general enjoyment. Twinks who are "the slayers of virgins" are celebrated in the larger circles of R99.

I don't think straight removal of LNS is the answer, but there are definitely changes that could be made. It's supposed to be a tradeoff for the scooter, caused by the lockout. Perhaps one possibility is increasing the duration, or allowing the victor to name the zone (likely more important for guild vs guild engagements)?

I think it's ideal to have meaningful PvP, without punishing people that aren't twinked beyond reason in the lower levels. I wouldn't expect the red community to step up to bat for that.

In guild v. guild setting it needs to be more stringent on the loser of a PvP engagement. There's no risk right now. I want to feel like I'm totally screwed if I lose a massive fight, at least for a couple of hours.

The loophole to losing over contention of a mob is mass plugging, calling Force LNS, unplugging and porting out immediately to snipe other mobs. That's literally the culture we've built with the current PnP. There are no fights that force guilds to commit fully once engaged in a fight. The best fights in the game have been in VP because there's no way out.

You don't need to abolish PnP at the raid level, you just need a timeframe on when guilds can actually zone in and LNS once they've called it in mass PvP. That's the purpose of locking a guild out of a zone from getting their corpses for a set amount of time once Force LnS is called. There's plenty of options with that - like only being able to LNS once the victorious guild has left the zone, or only being able to LNS after two hours have elapsed since the LNS was called (or less time than that). Being allowed into a raid zone to clean up corpses once slain and then walk away virtually unscathed is really kind of stupid.

If you're contending over raid mobs, you're no longer a newbie on Red. You should expect some form of risk coming at other guilds, no?

[Guido]

The same desyncing that happened in kc is the same kind of desyncing when someone is training the entire fear zone and runs it too close to the raid. Whether or not people are zoning in is not the issue, the zone just couldn't handle that many people in that small of an area.

ya I seriously believe we would see the de-sync again with those numbers

an upgrade in server I think is necessary and should be looked into asap.

velious dragons are a lot harder than kunark ones - so more bodies will be needed in essence - more bodies more desyncing of gameplay

[dontbanpls]

the Desync has to do with the AON spam. It's holocausts fault basically. Nizzar taught me all about it when I was in nihilum. Just spam a couple of those bad boys and the zone would desync with 25 people in it.

[Nirgon]

Andis go home pal

[Ipman_Wingchun]

Deaf Ears.

[krazyGlue]

I like the pnp the way it is . Stop trying to change rules that don't benefit the zerg

[Guide.Chroma]

The same desyncing that happened in kc is the same kind of desyncing when someone is training the entire fear zone and runs it too close to the raid. Whether or not people are zoning in is not the issue, the zone just couldn't handle that many people in that small of an area.

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.

In guild v. guild setting it needs to be more stringent on the loser of a PvP engagement. There's no risk right now. I want to feel like I'm totally screwed if I lose a massive fight, at least for a couple of hours.

The loophole to losing over contention of a mob is mass plugging, calling Force LNS, unplugging and porting out immediately to snipe other mobs. That's literally the culture we've built with the current PnP. There are no fights that force guilds to commit fully once engaged in a fight. The best fights in the game have been in VP because there's no way out.

You don't need to abolish PnP at the raid level, you just need a timeframe on when guilds can actually zone in and LNS once they've called it in mass PvP. That's the purpose of locking a guild out of a zone from getting their corpses for a set amount of time once Force LnS is called. There's plenty of options with that - like only being able to LNS once the victorious guild has left the zone, or only being able to LNS after two hours have elapsed since the LNS was called (or less time than that). Being allowed into a raid zone to clean up corpses once slain and then walk away virtually unscathed is really kind of stupid.

If you're contending over raid mobs, you're no longer a newbie on Red. You should expect some form of risk coming at other guilds, no?

That's an interesting idea...though logistically a little tricky. Under LNS right now, the reward for the winner is to continue on in the zone without harassment (a la the lockout). Rez timers are something that should be noted in the corpse lockout proposal. Though if your goal is to prevent guilds from sniping other targets after a fight, why wouldn't they just avoid the fight and go snipe?

I think that the LNS rules at the raid level should just ensure that your raid is uncontested in that area after. If you want to contest other mobs with a fight, then you need to be there to fight when a rival goes for it. Although the idea may seem silly that the fallen force can just loot and go on their merry way, I don't see how the current system is hurting anyone but the monopoly.

[dontbanpls]

ITT holo tries to rule lawyer victory

[grannock]

Velious should have all zone no level limmit pvp other than iceclad and ew. This whole idea of not leveling so you can hang out at our raids and talk shit is really old.

[Guido]

PnP for lowbies players and new players I think helps a lot and secures the player base so these softies don't just quit right away

PnP for 60s I think is bluebie as shit. And should not be on this red server. Simply put.

[FaithlessKR]

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.

This wasn't a small selection of people desyncing, our entire raid desynced upon zoning in and running to the corner by the right moat. I can guarantee you that some of these nerds live on the east coast with good internet (sub 20 ping) and have monster computers to boot.

We weren't zone hopping, so the issue isn't going to be fixed by making the argument that we all need to be in the same zone and stay in the same zone. They prepared several hours in advance with a very large force with their casters and rezzers being g-fluxxed onto the super block (so taking the zone prior with our 20-30 people also wasn't feasible).

There isn't a way for the 2 groups to co-exist in that zone prior to the mob being about to spawn. And there's no way for me to build a computer that will drop my ping below the 115-130 ms that I'm always in in the Pacific Northwest. So this in essence is a server hardware issue, especially since I've been in several 70v70s in the past with absolutely no lag or desyncing whatsoever.

I've heard that people spoke with rogean and karnors and a few other zones had been placed on bad server clusters to make room for the velious beta zones being properly tested. I also never desynced in Fear during trains prior to the shitfest Sunday, and now I do with regularity...so something has happened recently to the red99 server files.

[heartbrand]

ITT holo tries to rule lawyer victory

How is defending a policy that helps you rule lawyering?

[Rednaros]

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.



That's an interesting idea...though logistically a little tricky. Under LNS right now, the reward for the winner is to continue on in the zone without harassment (a la the lockout). Rez timers are something that should be noted in the corpse lockout proposal. Though if your goal is to prevent guilds from sniping other targets after a fight, why wouldn't they just avoid the fight and go snipe?

I think that the LNS rules at the raid level should just ensure that your raid is uncontested in that area after. If you want to contest other mobs with a fight, then you need to be there to fight when a rival goes for it. Although the idea may seem silly that the fallen force can just loot and go on their merry way, I don't see how the current system is hurting anyone but the monopoly.

the desync had little to do computer size it wasn't FPS lag it was MS/ping lag which falls on the server

[Guide.Chroma]

This wasn't a small selection of people desyncing, our entire raid desynced upon zoning in and running to the corner by the right moat. I can guarantee you that some of these nerds live on the east coast with good internet (sub 20 ping) and have monster computers to boot.

We weren't zone hopping, so the issue isn't going to be fixed by making the argument that we all need to be in the same zone and stay in the same zone. They prepared several hours in advance with a very large force with their casters and rezzers being g-fluxxed onto the super block (so taking the zone prior with our 20-30 people also wasn't feasible).

There isn't a way for the 2 groups to co-exist in that zone prior to the mob being about to spawn. And there's no way for me to build a computer that will drop my ping below the 115-130 ms that I'm always in in the Pacific Northwest. So this in essence is a server hardware issue, especially since I've been in several 70v70s in the past with absolutely no lag or desyncing whatsoever.

I've heard that people spoke with rogean and karnors and a few other zones had been placed on bad server clusters to make room for the velious beta zones being properly tested. I also never desynced in Fear during trains prior to the shitfest Sunday, and now I do with regularity...so something has happened recently to the red99 server files.

I don't have any information other than what I've presented, and I don't have anything to do with the server hardware. I can tell you what I see from my pov, but I can do as much about it as you.

Now to the LNS removal, what I was able to learn was that it has been done before. It led to corpse camping, bind rushing, and general wars of attrition. A 20 v 40 in a battle for Vox ended with the 20 winning. The 40 batphoned and continued to rush for 4+ hours, ending with the 20 that actually won to leave in frustration. Victory through skill is preferred to victory through attrition, and the removal of LNS favours the latter.

If your issue with LNS is "I don't like it" instead of "these are the detriments it's causing to the server", then there isn't a lot more for me to look at. Anyone that claims that the detriment is "becoming blue" will be shot. It's Everquest with PvP, not PvP with Everquest.

[Veltira]

Too damn long, didn't read

[Colgate]

I don't have any information other than what I've presented, and I don't have anything to do with the server hardware. I can tell you what I see from my pov, but I can do as much about it as you.

Now to the LNS removal, what I was able to learn was that it has been done before. It led to corpse camping, bind rushing, and general wars of attrition. A 20 v 40 in a battle for Vox ended with the 20 winning. The 40 batphoned and continued to rush for 4+ hours, ending with the 20 that actually won to leave in frustration. Victory through skill is preferred to victory through attrition, and the removal of LNS favours the latter.

If your issue with LNS is "I don't like it" instead of "these are the detriments it's causing to the server", then there isn't a lot more for me to look at. Anyone that claims that the detriment is "becoming blue" will be shot. It's Everquest with PvP, not PvP with Everquest.

the current iteration of the play nice policy in no way stops a guild/force from bind rushing and/or winning a battle through attrition

all it does it take the risk factor out of being the aggressor in PvP

[daasgoot]

remove pnp

[Colgate]

this is a rough draft of an amendment that i would make regarding the current force LNS policy; this would not apply to small scale LNS in non-raid zones so that random newbie dying in crushbone won't be affected by this

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In large scale PvP or any PvP in a contested raid zone, a force may call Force LNS at their bind(s) after they have died. They are then locked out of the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zone(s) for 1-2 hours. After that initial lock out, they may then zone in, gather their corpse(s), and then leave. They are then locked out from the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zones for 1-2 hours. Their lock out timer begins when all members of the force have left those zones. The lock out timer may also end if/when the opposing force also leaves those zones. The opposing(winning) force may dictate up to one zone adjacent to the lock out zones that you may not move into. If you are in the same guild as someone who is on Force LNS, you are also considered to share the same lock outs as them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this addresses the current issues of there being basically no risk/punishment for losing raid PvP and also the issue of forward LNSing

examples:

if you call force LNS in sebilis, you are then locked out of sebilis and trakanon's teeth

if you call force LNS in skyfire, you are then locked out of skyfire, veeshan's peak, overthere, and burning woods

if you call force LNS in kael, you are then locked out of kael, eastern wastes, and wakening land. the winning force can then dictate that you are not allowed to move into skyshrine

pls give feedback

[Guide.Chroma]

the current iteration of the play nice policy in no way stops a guild/force from bind rushing and/or winning a battle through attrition

all it does it take the risk factor out of being the aggressor in PvP

The 20 in the example above would have been able to LNS and go on their merry way, instead of sit being camped. Bind rushing, etc is indeed not prevented. That could be something worth looking at, though my wager would be that it would have to start from the players.

The risk of the aggressor is losing and having to take their toys and play somewhere else for the lockout. I don't see how this is a detrimental issue to the server when compared to being corpse camped.

[jibekn]

my wizard is currently suspended for winning pvp following to the rules.

[daasgoot]

plz no additional rules or amendments.

remove it all together.

if someone is corpse camping you then go play a different toon until they get bored of sitting on ur face.

next time, don't die

[dis_mornin]

Lot of PvP for longest tldr post in this thread.

[HippoNipple]

The risk of the aggressor is losing and having to take their toys and play somewhere else for the lockout. I don't see how this is a detrimental issue to the server when compared to being corpse camped.

There are two basic concerns the winning guild has when the other team calls LnS.

1) Use LnS to get corpses and then run off to snipe a different raid target not in contention yet.

If no PnP was in place the winning guild could have a small force keep corpses on lock down while the winning guilds raid force downed all targets they wanted.

2) Use LnS to get corpses and move towards the raid target if the fighting didn't happen in the zone of the raid target. Example would be dieing in EJ/TT and using LnS to move into Seb for Trak.

The tactic that is trying to be avoided is a group running around trying to snipe mobs, losing in PvP, then using LnS to get a free pass to run away to snipe another mob. It ends up being a game of cat and mouse that when the cat catches the mouse there are no real consequences to losing. The cat essentially has to let the mouse go and then try to find it again.

[Guide.Chroma]

this is a rough draft of an amendment that i would make regarding the current force LNS policy; this would not apply to small scale LNS in non-raid zones so that random newbie dying in crushbone won't be affected by this

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In large scale PvP or any PvP in a contested raid zone, a force may call Force LNS at their bind(s) after they have died. They are then locked out of the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zone(s) for 1-2 hours. After that initial lock out, they may then zone in, gather their corpse(s), and then leave. They are then locked out from the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zones for 1-2 hours. Their lock out timer begins when all members of the force have left those zones. The lock out timer may also end if/when the opposing force also leaves those zones. The opposing(winning) force may dictate up to one zone adjacent to the lock out zones that you may not move into. If you are in the same guild as someone who is on Force LNS, you are also considered to share the same lock outs as them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this addresses the current issues of there being basically no risk/punishment for losing raid PvP and also the issue of forward LNSing

examples:

if you call force LNS in sebilis, you are then locked out of sebilis and trakanon's teeth

if you call force LNS in skyfire, you are then locked out of skyfire, veeshan's peak, overthere, and burning woods

if you call force LNS in kael, you are then locked out of kael, eastern wastes, and wakening land. the winning force can then dictate that you are not allowed to move into skyshrine

pls give feedback

It'd take some more thinking/ looking into, but this is one of the reasonable suggestions. Would have to see what adjacent zone lockouts would cause shenanigans. The primary issue I have is enforcing the initial lockout. People that are bound in a locked zone, or claim to be bound in the locked zone is the first that comes to mind.

I'm still not sold that there needs to be more of a penalty to the loser besides losing whatever they were fighting for.

[heartbrand]

The irony of the people crying for there to be a penalty being the people who would suffer most from their being said penalty.

[daasgoot]

The irony of the people crying for there to be a penalty being the people who would suffer most from their being said penalty.

It's not ironic at all.

I don't lobby only for things will help me.. Even thought he PNP assists the smaller guilds in being able to snipe mobs, i still think its some carebear shit and should be removed.

[dis_mornin]

It'd take some more thinking/ looking into, but this is one of the reasonable suggestions. Would have to see what adjacent zone lockouts would cause shenanigans. The primary issue I have is enforcing the initial lockout. People that are bound in a locked zone, or claim to be bound in the locked zone is the first that comes to mind.

I'm still not sold that there needs to be more of a penalty to the loser besides losing whatever they were fighting for.

Biggest issue with PnP is the amount of frivolous petitions the GMs cater to and then mindlessly suspend people over. If that was deterred and only true pnp violations such as continuing to bind camp someone who called lns resulted in punishment then I think things will be ok. Basically currently on the box PnP is being used as a weapon against people and being exploited by the loser to hurt the winner because they know some well wrote up BS petition will result in 7 day suspy when all along winner may not have been acting out of malice or loser couldve just handled the situation differently.

One suggestion I have for velious though is to extend the lock out period for certain raid zones. If a guild wins PvP in say Kael forcing a lockout of loser. Lock out should be for 3 hours or until raid force leaves.

[Guide.Chroma]

There are two basic concerns the winning guild has when the other team calls LnS.

1) Use LnS to get corpses and then run off to snipe a different raid target not in contention yet.

If no PnP was in place the winning guild could have a small force keep corpses on lock down while the winning guilds raid force downed all targets they wanted.

2) Use LnS to get corpses and move towards the raid target if the fighting didn't happen in the zone of the raid target. Example would be dieing in EJ/TT and using LnS to move into Seb for Trak.

The tactic that is trying to be avoided is a group running around trying to snipe mobs, losing in PvP, then using LnS to get a free pass to run away to snipe another mob. It ends up being a game of cat and mouse that when the cat catches the mouse there are no real consequences to losing. The cat essentially has to let the mouse go and then try to find it again.

1) If there was no LNS, why wouldn't the loser guild not just avoid fighting in the first place and snipe targets anyways?

2) This I can get behind, and think that letting the winning force have a say in the locked zones, or something like the adjacent zone rule would be appropriate.

I don't see a problem with loser guild getting mobs that winner guild isn't prioritising acquiring or denying.

[Rednaros]

I think LNS is stupid and is used to ban fish
force lns is reasonable though

[Luniz]

the reason PnP was created was because Nihilum's toxic lock down of all mobs forced guilds attempting to break-in and contest being corpse camped

Now the argument is that competing guilds need PnP abolished to compete? ok

[Raev]

Small CS derail about the lag: when you have N players in a small space, the server must inform each of them about the presence of the other N-1 players. This makes it an O(N^2) algorithm, and basically you can't throw hardware at problems that are more than maybe O(N log N)

TLDR: don't expect buying a bigger box to fix your lag

[HippoNipple]

1) If there was no LNS, why wouldn't the loser guild not just avoid fighting in the first place and snipe targets anyways?



The loser guild is trying to avoid fighting. That is not in question.

Assume there are two equal raid targets. Small guild tries to snipe, gets caught and loses a PvP skirmish. They call LnS and run off to the next raid target while the winning team meds up after PvP skirmish and then completes the target they fought and won for. They both get a raid target.

Basically the request is to punish the losing team somewhat. If there was no LnS the winning team could camp corpses and down both raid targets. With a lockout before looting your corpse it would be similar to this without the players griefing the losing players directly.

With much more than 2 targets the losing guild won't miss all their opportunity to raid that day, but losing a PvP skirmish will make them miss out on 1-2 hours of raiding instead of no time penalty what so ever.

[Guide.Chroma]

The loser guild is trying to avoid fighting. That is not in question.

Assume there are two equal raid targets. Small guild tries to snipe, gets caught and loses a PvP skirmish. They call LnS and run off to the next raid target while the winning team meds up after PvP skirmish and then completes the target they fought and won for. They both get a raid target.

Basically the request is to punish the losing team somewhat. If there was no LnS the winning team could camp corpses and down both raid targets. With a lockout before looting your corpse it would be similar to this without the players griefing the losing players directly.

With much more than 2 targets the losing guild won't miss all their opportunity to raid that day, but losing a PvP skirmish will make them miss out on 1-2 hours of raiding instead of no time penalty what so ever.

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

[Fame]

read the first few lines, A-fuckin-MEN! Repeal this shit, take us back to the old days, exp loss on pvp death, no pnp and what the fuck is a GM?

[Fame]

How much time is pnp/LnS taking from the GMs through petitionquest? If more than 1-2 hours per week, fuck pnp.

[Colgate]

i'd say a good 95% of suspensions that happen on red99 are from PNP

at least 50% of those are falsified/retarded LNS "violations" that either did not actually happen or should not warrant a suspension

[Colgate]

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

[daasgoot_2.0]

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

good example of this is ferrott/fear

let someone die in ferrott, call force LNS.. everyone zones into or plugs into fear and waits for the opposing force to engage mob.

[Guide.Chroma]

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

What's your thoughts on only allowing a guild to have 1 active LNS. Essentially if they are LNS locked from an engagement, they can't LNS their force again until it expires.

This way they atleast have to choose battles more carefully, but aren't being destroyed for attempting to contest (something that I would think should be encouraged).

I'd also like to emphasise this quote from the LNS policy: "This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone". This can mean a lockout lasts much longer than an hour.

[Uuruk]

I'd really like to see KC be open pvp.

[Guide.Chroma]

good example of this is ferrott/fear

let someone die in ferrott, call force LNS.. everyone zones into or plugs into fear and waits for the opposing force to engage mob.

I'll look into some sort of answer for this leapfrogging behavior. Personally I think it's an exploit of the rules, and I would be inclined to say Sirken would agree (no guarantee there, I am the bottom rung on the ladder after all).

The idea is to loot and then leave, not loot and move forward. I see potential fixes to be the victor declaring the locked zone, or establishing an adjacency rule. I'm in favour of the first.

[red99playing]

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

Rallos Zek had a good risk mechanic to help deter grieving, Red99 Doesn't allow noobs to raid boss a twink down for two reasons most times.

1. No Item loot
2. Low server Pop
secret #3. YT Seekers with 60 oors and gear made of rmt bait

the risks that comes with pvp on this server is a loss of carried cash and PvE/ PVP potential in that zone for the next hour.

Players do need to interact with each other to progress for a multitude of reasons. PVP contest is definitely one of them.

[Gardur]

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

1) I would argue that the current state of the server necessitates this be the case. If empire could just crush your whole force to a man everytme you contest then raid mob monopolization would only get worse.

2) I'm all for victor calling exclusion zones. I remember killing az outside fear portal and them just lnsing inside. That's why the ogre wall was built.

[Colgate]

i have never seen this "limit to 1 LNS lockout" thing happen

ever

there needs to be punishment in the form of people staying the fuck out of the zone for a little while and any adjacent zone when they lose a fight

[daasgoot_2.0]

whether staff considers it an "exploit" of the rules or not.. It would not be fair to punish someone because it is not stated in the PNP that its not allowed.

no matter how specific you are, how many amendments you make there will always be a loophole and people will use it.

more rules = more petitions = more staff time answering petitions or staff not having enough time to answer all the petitions and being flamed constantly for it.

easier to just drop it all together and force people to man up.

[Colgate]

1) I would argue that the current state of the server necessitates this be the case. If empire could just crush your whole force to a man everytme you contest then raid mob monopolization would only get worse.

2) I'm all for victor calling exclusion zones. I remember killing az outside fear portal and them just lnsing inside. That's why the ogre wall was built.

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene

[pgerman]

Ive asked sirken multiple times to increase force LNS from 1 hour to at least 3 hours. I agree that a fight won should mean something, if someone wants to use force LNS

[heartbrand]

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene

Disagree with sea wall. I think it allows for more pvp interactions to happen. Anything that allows more pvp to occur is a positive. I fought hard for the pnp to be implemented and I think it's a positive thing. The problem is lack of active guides and people making rulings based off YouTube videos.

[daasgoot_2.0]

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene

well, every fight is a bad fight against the zerg. when you outnumbered 2-3x its smarter to avoid the zerg all together.

[Buhbuh]

What's your thoughts on only allowing a guild to have 1 active LNS. Essentially if they are LNS locked from an engagement, they can't LNS their force again until it expires.

This way they atleast have to choose battles more carefully, but aren't being destroyed for attempting to contest (something that I would think should be encouraged).

I'd also like to emphasise this quote from the LNS policy: "This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone". This can mean a lockout lasts much longer than an hour.

That would be the point of a lockout, though. You'd really have to know when to pick your battles, and when you do pick a battle, you have to stick it out. Otherwise you lose 2 hours, which, for Velious, won't be a crippling ordeal, but will still hurt.

I can't remember the last time an opposing guild has called Force LNS twice in one day. So that would rarely ever apply, especially because when the out-classed force loses once on a repop day, they just avoid PvP engagements for the rest of the day.

The point is not to have five minute mass PvP fights where people can plug and call Force LNS with 1 or 2 deaths. It's to force people to commit and fight. If there's a lockout period for LNS, neither side will want to quit. 2 hours of time are on the line for a loss. These are the types of fights that are the most fun here, not the ones with chickenshit Force LNS calls 5 minutes into a fight.

[JayN]

making red bluer then blue :(

[Buhbuh]

Disagree with sea wall. I think it allows for more pvp interactions to happen. Anything that allows more pvp to occur is a positive. I fought hard for the pnp to be implemented and I think it's a positive thing. The problem is lack of active guides and people making rulings based off YouTube videos.

But the point we're making is that it's never meaningful PvP with the current state of the PnP.

It's chickenshit rule lawyering PvP where no side has to commit if they feel out-classed.

If you want raid content, commit to a fight. Don't bitch out and look for ways around having to fight.

[Guide.Chroma]

i have never seen this "limit to 1 LNS lockout" thing happen

ever

there needs to be punishment in the form of people staying the fuck out of the zone for a little while and any adjacent zone when they lose a fight

It was an idea, that's all. I agree with finding something to keep the leapfrogging out.

whether staff considers it an "exploit" of the rules or not.. It would not be fair to punish someone because it is not stated in the PNP that its not allowed.

no matter how specific you are, how many amendments you make there will always be a loophole and people will use it.

more rules = more petitions = more staff time answering petitions or staff not having enough time to answer all the petitions and being flamed constantly for it.

easier to just drop it all together and force people to man up.

I think it's pretty fair to punish people for being douchecanoes and actively subverting the rules. If that statement itself needs to be put in, so be it.

The staff doesn't care about being flamed for not answering petitions, and I don't care about creating more petitions and dealing with them myself if it means improving the server. The server has been growing in both population and positivity, so I doubt stopping everything we've been doing would solve anything but killing the box...again.

That would be the point of a lockout, though. You'd really have to know when to pick your battles, and when you do pick a battle, you have to stick it out. Otherwise you lose 2 hours, which, for Velious, won't be a crippling ordeal, but will still hurt.

I can't remember the last time an opposing guild has called Force LNS twice in one day. So that would rarely ever apply, especially because when the out-classed force loses once on a repop day, they just avoid PvP engagements for the rest of the day.

The point is not to have five minute mass PvP fights where people can plug and call Force LNS with 1 or 2 deaths. It's to force people to commit and fight. If there's a lockout period for LNS, neither side will want to quit. 2 hours of time are on the line for a loss. These are the types of fights that are the most fun here, not the ones with chickenshit Force LNS calls 5 minutes into a fight.

If you mean a full raid lockout, then PvP would just be constantly avoided instead of there being an attempt at contention. When dragons are alive, pixels are more important than PvP. Corpse locking would just make the monopoly easier, and even if it would fix one issue it is causing another.

[pgerman]

pnp should only have 2 rules


1. Force LNS extend to 3 hours, stay out of the zone
2. No training


Any other LNS is player enforced like it was on live. If you are afraid to die again, Log the hell out.

All this steal killing PNP and shit, get the hell out of here. Blue server has raped this server in the ass with PnP.

[Buhbuh]

If you mean a full raid lockout, then PvP would just be constantly avoided instead of there being an attempt at contention. When dragons are alive, pixels are more important than PvP. Corpse locking would just make the monopoly easier, and even if it would fix one issue it is causing another.

Correct. Just like it is now. Except when it does jump off, it's actually good.

[BardPop]

Lns already applies to all zones the pvp took place in, should be a small modification to make it apply to tov if you died in WW, etc.

[Rednaros]

pnp should only have 2 rules


1. Force LNS extend to 3 hours, stay out of the zone
2. No training


Any other LNS is player enforced like it was on live. If you are afraid to die again, Log the hell out.

All this steal killing PNP and shit, get the hell out of here. Blue server has raped this server in the ass with PnP.

Agreed 100%

[Gardur]

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene

I mean we're both bringing our own perspective here. You almost always win so of course you're looking to make that count for more.

I'm trying to get the new folks engaged and pvping. So of course I would like to see my people able to lick their wounds and move on. Smaller guilds don't have extras of some key classes so losing a few people can end their day as they can't afford to just leave corpses and move on.

[Colgate]

my proposed changes exist to eliminate a bunch of bullshit gray areas and ideas like forward LNS / leapfrogging

[jibekn]

this is a role playing game and i cannot roleplay with PNP.

get rid of LNS completely it causes more damage than it helps.

if you want to do something good for the server limit guild/alliance sizes.

its already a known fact the server cant even handle whats already on it and its only going to get more populated.

[Clark]

PNP isn't even remotely classic.

Ruining pvp server with this shit. Glad I don't play there anymore is embarassing.

[Forthy Walrus]

being the recipient of a recent 7 day suspension I would have to agree with polishing the server's rules up, red specifically. I breezed through the policy/rules for these servers and then logged onto a red server that felt much like sullon zek when I played live. Turns out something simple like taking over an important loot camp from a lower level who can barely kill the spawns, can get someone suspended when accompanied with the proper amount of complaining. Complaining controls the server and has everyone filling their hard drives with recorded material just in case someone else felt like their gaming experience was unacceptable.

I would love to see some changes but then again, I play for free so I'm accepting of anything, including a 7 day suspension for a rule that feels very blue.

[Clark]

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

good post, 5*

[Clark]

Absolutely mind boggling that people other than Empire would be in favor of removing LNS. If you can't see how LNS is a huge help to competing guilds I don't know what to tell you. The people fucked by the removal of PNP are guilds like Fresh, who now if they contest which will likely end up in defeat, be corpse camped for hours on end with no ability to move to other targets. A couple of demoralizing defeats like that without the ability to get your corpse, and watch the Empire apps flow in and the people moving back to blue.

That is how pvp was on live, and is supposed to be..

Also needs 1000+ population though too so not everyone hops into one zerg guild like Empire for the loot gravy train.

[Clark]

Need a wipe, and variance.

[snufzaimoverlord]

Aimchat doesn't approve of pnp.

[Buhbuh]

I mean we're both bringing our own perspective here. You almost always win so of course you're looking to make that count for more.

I'm trying to get the new folks engaged and pvping. So of course I would like to see my people able to lick their wounds and move on. Smaller guilds don't have extras of some key classes so losing a few people can end their day as they can't afford to just leave corpses and move on.

The current rules were made to reflect the inability of other guilds to compete with Nihilum. And it's been shown that is through all the fault of their own (poor leadership).

Smaller guilds should be led by their leaders to take risks within their means, not be led by rules to engage stronger guilds haphazardly and half-heartedly, only to walk away unscathed.

No one in their right mind would engage Empire by themselves. I'd even argue that Fresh, especially right now in its incipient stages, would learn almost nothing by engaging a guild like us in mass PvP. The gear gap and skill level of the average member is way too vast. In normal, everyday skirmish fights? Sure. But not in mass PvP.

[krazyGlue]

The current rules were made to reflect the inability of other guilds to compete with Nihilum. And it's been shown that is through all the fault of their own (poor leadership).

Smaller guilds should be led by their leaders to take risks within their means, not be led by rules to engage stronger guilds haphazardly and half-heartedly, only to walk away unscathed.

No one in their right mind would engage Empire by themselves. I'd even argue that Fresh, especially right now in its incipient stages, would learn almost nothing by engaging a guild like us in mass PvP. The gear gap and skill level of the average member is way too vast. In normal, everyday skirmish fights? Sure. But not in mass PvP.

voted no

[Buhbuh]

luckily your dyslexia and having no rational thoughts puts your opinion lower on the totem pole than anyone else here on the forums

[krazyGlue]

luckily your dyslexia and having no rational thoughts puts your opinion lower on the totem pole than anyone else here on the forums

sick burn dog . but i still vote no

[Guide.Chroma]

The current rules were made to reflect the inability of other guilds to compete with Nihilum. And it's been shown that is through all the fault of their own (poor leadership).

Smaller guilds should be led by their leaders to take risks within their means, not be led by rules to engage stronger guilds haphazardly and half-heartedly, only to walk away unscathed.

No one in their right mind would engage Empire by themselves. I'd even argue that Fresh, especially right now in its incipient stages, would learn almost nothing by engaging a guild like us in mass PvP. The gear gap and skill level of the average member is way too vast. In normal, everyday skirmish fights? Sure. But not in mass PvP.

Experience for the driver and their drivees is never a waste. They more practiced they are in buffing, gathering, assisting right, etc the better. Whether the rules were placed with that sort of intention, I don't think it's negative. The big guild gets to experience PvP instead of playing elves by themselves, and the small guild gets a chance at an upset.

[Runya]

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene

Imo you shouldn't be able to lns from pvp unless you took a yt

[Guido]

-

[Lime]

Experience for the driver and their drivees is never a waste. They more practiced they are in buffing, gathering, assisting right, etc the better. Whether the rules were placed with that sort of intention, I don't think it's negative. The big guild gets to experience PvP instead of playing elves by themselves, and the small guild gets a chance at an upset.

Upsets are not very possible with current policies. If you were to wipe Empire in NTOV this only affords you a 1 hour window. Raiding in NTOV will be a multiday 12 plus hour Marathon session. With current policy you will have to defeat Empire 12+ times, when you should be able to kill them once and corpse camp them all night. The odds of a smaller force repelling a bigger force 12+ times is very low.

The worst part of this is that they can call LNS and camp out in NTOV and wait to ambush you at the next boss after LNS expires. You will have no ability to deny access to the enemy going deeper inside the zone and camping to ambush you as they fly the LNS flag under current policies.

I also don't think you can fault people for finding loopholes in the rules, as the rules themselves currently are so vague and randomly enforced it is hard to define what the rules actually are. Technically under the current system attacking Empire while raiding could be interpreted as attempted experience loss, zone disruption, and account punishable. Your policies need to be fully revamped and defined in a way that is not open to individual CSR interpretation of how they feel about the issue.

[Masq]

There just needs to be actual repercussions for breaking the policy and you wouldn't have 5000 petitions. Getting suspended on a single account means nothing when everyone here is a turbonerd with multiple guild accounts for people to use.

Start laying down some real punishment.

[SHOWITME]

Imo you shouldn't be able to lns from pvp unless you took a yt

this is what happened originally with YT then nihilum corpse camped red dawn after they wiped to gorenaire and made all of them port to dreadlands and take a yellow text before they were permitted to lns

[vouss]

Your policies need to be fully revamped and defined in a way that is not open to individual CSR interpretation of how they feel about the issue.

Recently had a conversation or two with Sirken about this and he called me a nerd and told me to stop trying to twisting rules, with no contribution to the conversation otherwise, good luck!

[SVentura]

I'm an unknown, and starting out with absolute shit prospects in my future, but I'd have to say if you're trying to keep it classic then the LNS/PNP should probably be abolished. I only ever played a little bit on pvp servers with EQ specifically, but some of my most vivid memories were of someone sitting on my corpse. I tried to talk it out with them, but when I couldn't I did something else and ate the shit that was offered to me. That's kind of the name of the game. That's pvp, really. Any other game ever does this; they don't hold your hand. I mean, if your argument is that you're trying to build a server population then I have two questions for you: first, why build a pvp server with nerfed pvp; second, why do you care about growing the server pop so badly? It's not like you're getting subscription fees once a month from everyone -- the only people that choose to play here are the ones who want a "classic" EQ pvp experience (e.g., it should probably be classic).

[Zalaerian]

The worst part of this is that they can call LNS and camp out in NTOV and wait to ambush you at the next boss after LNS expires. You will have no ability to deny access to the enemy going deeper inside the zone and camping to ambush you as they fly the LNS flag under current policies.



Camping is not LNSing and has been defined as such by sirken. Doing so forfeits your guilds LNS. The closest zone you could camp out in would maybe be DN as WW is considered adjacent.

[Saludeen]

TLDR version: Get rid of LNS rule. Let people deal with it. If you don't, then bads will zerg you, die, then regroup and keep attacking your raid.

I Agree. If you need to LNS then you can try to sneak it out, play an alt, or do something in RL. You could enter a treaty and agree not to attack the raid again that night. If you break the treaty, then they'll corpse camp you for months and attack the raid you just wiped.

Suif
31 Bard.

[Silent]

Regardless of any LNS PNP rules changed or removed, would still need someone to enforce them to get rid of petition and lawyer questing. Making sure people don't eat a 20 day suspension cuz they just logged in, killed someone that died 30 mins ago and called LNS then petitions and enjoy your time off. That would require at the very least the community to come together to talk out the easy stuff.

But any type of raid pvp would need a GM/guide watch over and have to understand what is going on otherwise they will just read the most petitions about X player and suspend, then get the full story a week later when they have the time and if its untrue, they fix it. Most of the people who ate suspensions recently are long time players, and play more then your average P99'er.

[Drakaris]

Regardless of any LNS PNP rules changed or removed, would still need someone to enforce them to get rid of petition and lawyer questing. Making sure people don't eat a 20 day suspension cuz they just logged in, killed someone that died 30 mins ago and called LNS then petitions and enjoy your time off. That would require at the very least the community to come together to talk out the easy stuff.

But any type of raid pvp would need a GM/guide watch over and have to understand what is going on otherwise they will just read the most petitions about X player and suspend, then get the full story a week later when they have the time and if its untrue, they fix it. Most of the people who ate suspensions recently are long time players, and play more then your average P99'er.

Yo Jupe!

Miss talking to u and ur bro! Where ya guys been hiding?

[Lime]

Camping is not LNSing and has been defined as such by sirken. Doing so forfeits your guilds LNS. The closest zone you could camp out in would maybe be DN as WW is considered adjacent.

Please show me in the current LNS policy where it says this.

[Silent]

Been around, various diff teamspeaks on and off. Though ive been sick lately so only been on when needed and mostly doing bitch work. Few more days I should be back to goog health.

[Samsung]

Been around, various diff teamspeaks on and off. Though ive been sick lately so only been on when needed and mostly doing bitch work. Few more days I should be back to goog health.

log on ts pal and get well

[heartbrand]

Please show me in the current LNS policy where it says this.

After retrieving your corpse, you are allowed a short amount of time to med enough mana to safely get out of the zone (ie, enough for a couple casts of invisibility, FD, or a port spell), memorize those spells, and then must leave the zone immediately for 1 hour. This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone.


???? That clearly states you must leave, and if you don't, the LNS timer hasn't started.

[Littlegyno 13.0]

After retrieving your corpse, you are allowed a short amount of time to med enough mana to safely get out of the zone (ie, enough for a couple casts of invisibility, FD, or a port spell), memorize those spells, and then must leave the zone immediately for 1 hour. This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone.


???? That clearly states you must leave, and if you don't, the LNS timer hasn't started.

lets ignore this shit hb. this stuff is beneath the Dragonslayer family's concerns.

[heartbrand]

The issue isn't the LNS rules, it's the people petitioning dumb shit to get people banned, and the lack of staff manpower to be online and observe.

[krazyGlue]

The issue isn't the LNS rules, it's the people petitioning dumb shit to get people banned, and the lack of staff manpower to be online and observe.

Heh I agree , I got suspended for killing Samhain 20 minutes after he called lns and didn't leave the zone . I also provided prof ect.. And derubael hit me with a 2 week suspension

[Buhbuh]

Yeah, there's really no medium where people can provide counter evidence for people's claims.

They need to start handing out the exact punishment used on PnP violators to the people who are fishing for illegitimate bans instead of just taking people's word for it when they're wrong.

That might solve the trigger happy petitionquesting. And you legitimately should eat a suspension for wasting a GM's time. There are people on this server who seem like they have almost a petition a day against other players.

The point is, no one on this server in the level 50-60 range is being aggrieved that badly in game to merit petitions of the volume we're seeing. Almost no one that I've seen in the past three months has crippled the game play of others to even justify a small suspension. LnS violations are very rarely an egregious disregard for the server rules.

Half the suspensions done yesterday were the most insane, idiotic suspensions, but because there's no measure to actually prove your innocence, we just have a suspend and ask questions later culture developing.

And by the time someone is able to get back to you? The suspension is already a week old.

Something in the PnP needs to change, be eliminated or re-tooled to stop wasting everyone's time.

Right now you can spend ten minutes of your day petitioning that someone did something injurious in game to you, and the exchange you get is a week (or more) of the alleged wrongdoer's time. It takes no effort to petition without proof, yet it works like a charm.

[Slathar]

Yeah, there's really no medium where people can provide counter evidence for people's claims.

They need to start handing out the exact punishment used on PnP violators to the people who are fishing for illegitimate bans instead of just taking people's word for it when they're wrong.

That might solve the trigger happy petitionquesting. And you legitimately should eat a suspension for wasting a GM's time. There are people on this server who seem like they have almost a petition a day against other players.

The point is, no one on this server in the level 50-60 range is being aggrieved that badly in game to merit petitions of the volume we're seeing. Almost no one that I've seen in the past three months has crippled the game play of others to even justify a small suspension. LnS violations are very rarely an egregious disregard for the server rules.

Half the suspensions done yesterday were the most insane, idiotic suspensions, but because there's no measure to actually prove your innocence, we just have a suspend and ask questions later culture developing.

And by the time someone is able to get back to you? The suspension is already a week old.

Something in the PnP needs to change, be eliminated or re-tooled to stop wasting everyone's time.

Right now you can spend ten minutes of your day petitioning that someone did something injurious in game to you, and the exchange you get is a week (or more) of the alleged wrongdoer's time. It takes no effort to petition without proof, yet it works like a charm.


lol tldr


seek help

[Fael]

We also need clear rules.

If we are not allowed to snare players that have mobs chasing them, then it needs to be stated somewhere clearly.

In my opinion, any person that would petition such a thing should get a seven day suspension. Instead, we are answering such petitions and suspending accounts of players that had no intention to violate any rule, or even knew that such a rule was in existence.

[krazyGlue]

Well at the time I got suspended . Derubael And I belive sirken both said that they were going to start handing out long time suspensions for people that try and get someone suspended with false or illegitimate evidence . But I have yet to see this happen

[Vitality]

That would require either of them to actually watch gameplay on red real time.

Sirken was filming his skype show during reds biggest battle ever

[HippoNipple]

Well at the time I got suspended . Derubael And I belive sirken both said that they were going to start handing out long time suspensions for people that try and get someone suspended with false or illegitimate evidence . But I have yet to see this happen

I would assume there aren't many people sending in false petitions. The problem is people are accidentally breaking the rules or the rules are just too strict. According to the rules in place all of these people should be suspended. There may just need to be a change in rules.

It is tough to come up with a perfect solution. I think PnP has increased population and when people argue for specific changes there always seems to be conflicting sides. I do think most agree that the current system could use tweaking. The GMs are obviously aware of the problem because the suspensions go through them. They can't seem weak or biased and only suspend some people so they are probably forced to suspend more people than they think they should while the current rules are in place.

Hopefully they are working on some changes for the players and their sake.

[Buhbuh]

There are false petitions. I've been petitioned for training because a player doesn't understand sneak/ agro mechanics in game. That shit happens all the time. There are plenty of people who petition falsely. There are also people who lose their right to LnS by doing something stupid, but when they petition that they called LNSed and were killed, all that is seen is that someone killed them twice within a short period of time rather than the actions they took to lose their right to LNS.

[SVentura]

Actually having this part of the rule enforced might help stop some erroneous LNS suspensions: " If you need to move across multiple zones in order to Loot and Scoot, you must call LnS as you move through each zone. If a new player enters the zone, you must call Loot and Scoot so they are aware of your intentions."

It seems like it's the problem of the lns'er rather than the pk'er to make sure everyone who is zoning or coming into a zone or what-have-you knows that they're walking on protected ground.

I typically only ever see someone call out LNS once (unless they're doing it more often in shout and I'm not in their zones?) and then coast away afterwards. Maybe move calling LNS to the shout channel and then be more active about it. That way the problem of "proof" becomes the burden of the accuser rather than the accused. I don't know how much of a pain digging through logs would be, but it seems like it'd be pretty easy to figure out whether or not someone didn't actively call LNS, someone new came into the zone, and then killed the dude on the CR.

Obviously it wouldn't solve all of the problems with LNS suspensions, but it might help some of the more ridiculous/accidental violations?

[Slathar]

hey idiots





shut up

[Colgate]

i'd say 95% of LNS related suspensions are from the person trying to LNS not being vocal enough about it

pretty much every single day i'll see someone call LNS and then 15 minutes later get killed by someone who was either not online or was zoning and then was never informed about it

of course, this is always followed up with "enjoy your ban"

man, what a terrible culture this shit has bred

i've heard from at least a dozen different players today that they don't want to participate in PvP or even speaking in-game because of how often people are suspended over very trivial, stupid things. i mean, someone was permabanned last night for saying "FREE <insert several suspended players' names here>" several times in /shout when no one outside of our guild was in zone.

this shit is seriously out of hand

[SVentura]

Wait, so does that mean someone in your own guild got them suspended?

[Colgate]

no?

[rollin5k]

Yes the rules totally bred this culture

[Saludeen]

Abolish LNS and stop babysitting pvpers. Problem solved.

Anyone who complains (including myself) has multiple options to solve the issue of being corpse camped.

1. Plug and go outside.
2. Ask them nicely to let you get your corpse (sincerely).
3. Pay them to let you get it.
4. Call your paladin friends.
5. Play an alt
6. Try to get your corpse anyway.

Suif
31 bard

[Vitality]

And so the blind shall lead the deaf into the summer snow.

[Gardur]

Yeah idk. I got killed while on force lns twice on Sunday night by empire folks when I very clearly LNS'd. Reminded my attackers I was on lns and shouted while in each zone as well.
Stoopy the cleric was mad he got pkd by my people 4 zones from seb. Some pally got me in dl too.

It's cool though I ain't mad and didn't petition. A guild that big can't possibly keep everyone in line.

It's red99 pals just get over this petition quest shit.

[vouss]

Wish it was that easy but these people are filth

[Fael]

On this server if you snare someone that is kiting mobs it yields a 7 day suspension. It's unbelievable.

[Littlegyno 13.0]

On this server if you snare someone that is kiting mobs it yields a 7 day suspension. It's unbelievable.

Red: Fael - 60 monk / Dolic - 53 bard
Blue: Dolic - 60 Bard / Dolik- 60 Monk / Mazzarin - 60 Wizard / Fael 60 Necro / Kaylen - 60 Paladin

goog gog.

[Lime]

After retrieving your corpse, you are allowed a short amount of time to med enough mana to safely get out of the zone (ie, enough for a couple casts of invisibility, FD, or a port spell), memorize those spells, and then must leave the zone immediately for 1 hour. This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone.


???? That clearly states you must leave, and if you don't, the LNS timer hasn't started.

Doesn't clearly say anything about logging/camping out, or that you can't do it. If someone logs off they have technically left the game world and thus the zone they were in.

But thanks for trying.

[Buhbuh]

Yeah idk. I got killed while on force lns twice on Sunday night by empire folks when I very clearly LNS'd. Reminded my attackers I was on lns and shouted while in each zone as well.
Stoopy the cleric was mad he got pkd by my people 4 zones from seb. Some pally got me in dl too.

It's cool though I ain't mad and didn't petition. A guild that big can't possibly keep everyone in line.

It's red99 pals just get over this petition quest shit.

That's generally the attitude I hold. I'm really just too lazy/ don't get mad for being fucked in game by somebody. But it was a regular occurrence on TZ from PDM, so I'm hardened to it/ have just learned to deal with it.

[vouss]

Love all the players on the server what a blast it has been

[Zalaerian]

Doesn't clearly say anything about logging/camping out, or that you can't do it. If someone logs off they have technically left the game world and thus the zone they were in.

But thanks for trying.

Has been ruled previously you can not camp in a LNS zone

[Clark]

PNP/LNS needs to be removed.


Not even remotely classic.

[Clark]

Abolish LNS and stop babysitting pvpers. Problem solved.

Anyone who complains (including myself) has multiple options to solve the issue of being corpse camped.

1. Plug and go outside.
2. Ask them nicely to let you get your corpse (sincerely).
3. Pay them to let you get it.
4. Call your paladin friends.
5. Play an alt
6. Try to get your corpse anyway.

Suif
31 bard

+1 :cool:

[quido]

I originally rolled Edward because Nihilum maggots left my bard plugged out of BW so much.

[Widan]

Doesn't clearly say anything about logging/camping out, or that you can't do it. If someone logs off they have technically left the game world and thus the zone they were in.

But thanks for trying.

No, their character has not left the zone they were in. But thanks for trying.

[iruinedyourday]

Yeah idk. I got killed while on force lns twice on Sunday night by empire folks when I very clearly LNS'd. Reminded my attackers I was on lns and shouted while in each zone as well.
Stoopy the cleric was mad he got pkd by my people 4 zones from seb. Some pally got me in dl too.

It's cool though I ain't mad and didn't petition. A guild that big can't possibly keep everyone in line.

It's red99 pals just get over this petition quest shit.

http://www.brianmcl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/backhand.png

[SVentura]

"If you log out you may return in 1 hour and call Loot and Scoot." from the PNP rules stickey.

Doesn't seem like you can't log out. It does seem like logging out essentially makes a two hour timer on your non-pvp rather than a 1 hour non-pvp from a regular lns. *shrug* I may have missed some other ruling, but if it isn't in the sticky then how official is it?

[vouss]

We have a clear set of PnP rules, just read them Nd stop trying to twist the rules.

[jibekn]

"If you log out you may return in 1 hour and call Loot and Scoot." from the PNP rules stickey.

Doesn't seem like you can't log out. It does seem like logging out essentially makes a two hour timer on your non-pvp rather than a 1 hour non-pvp from a regular lns. *shrug* I may have missed some other ruling, but if it isn't in the sticky then how official is it?

my wizard got suspended for abiding by this rule. watch out they are out to get you not help you it seems.

tread lightly

[Tune]

keep lns

how else will you ban people for no reason

[dontbanpls]

Allowing any player, or group of players dictate what the PNP would be is mind boggling.

As if people don't already complain enough about favoritism around here.