Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrei
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
================================Warning potential trolling section=
Now I can't resist to not point out the irony of this thread. Let's recap a bit here....
=============End of troll section=============================
Sorry, I really shouldn't have posted the trolling section but just couldn't resist at all the fake PR spin going on here. Like I said, Dumesh I hope you make another thread for your proposal... The original 4 points is my contribution to your post.
PS: It's 5am! Ignore grammar/spelling for all you internet grammar warriors!~
|
This sounds like a Chinese take on the Korean War. Please keep this kind of stuff out of the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrei
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
1. 1 Hour afk = booted from server (this should fix the non raiders problem of getting booted randomly for being afk). Honestly if your going to be afk for more than an hour just log back on.
2. First to engage rule 15min, exactly like Dumesh outlined with a small adjustment here and there for specific bosses that requires planar clears.
3. Increase Time variance even more to + or - 7 ~ 10 days. Add in a flat 8 hours before variance starts on time of the death of the boss (Emil's idea). To further discourage camping even with these rules.
4. Offer draconian consequences for lying / fabricating incidents to GM. If proof was ever found that X person was guilty of making shit up, go beyond the 1 month ban. PERMA BAN of IP and account, repeat offenses from full members of X guild = dissolution of sketchy guild.
|
I would like to address each point and say that while I disagree with them, the reasons vary greatly from guild perspectives, serverwide population perspectives, and even in terms of GM involvement.
1. Having a hard server kick for AFKing is game changing for people other than raiders. If the server was running on a cable modem in someone's cellar and you want to keep the amount of data transfer down by keeping the population low, then fine. This server has a fairly pro setup and there is no reason to boot people off the server. If, perhaps, Rogean deems it reasonable to make it so as the server population grows, then so be it. This, however, is a "feature" that would have to be decided not by the players but by the GM staff. As the ruleset stands there is nothing against AFK camping. If they implemented this, their own server rules would be moot.
Something to note: a roll call clause was put into effect in the player made rulset to allow a guild to take rights from another guild if they were AFK to the point that they could not meet the minimum requirements to claim a raid force when a mob spawns. It has been used multiple times with little to no success. That tells me that there are enough people active that adding this rule will not alter the gamescape much.
2. Dumesh's idea still focuses on FFA and is only really applicable, as he said, to outside boss encounters. There are no outside boss encounters right now that are appropriate for this sort of thing unless you have very particular stipulations for CT. For future encounters it may be useful but you're relying on everyone to have the same timer, and to respect it. Not to mention the fact that by attempting to steal agro, you're pretty much going against server rules of attempting to KS engaged mobs. Find me a situation where you're not going to have an opposing raid force attempting to agro the mob off of the original kiter. If, on the flipside, you are saying that once agro a guild would have 15 minutes to get ready and engage while the kiter(s) kite, we might be on to something. I will say that for all of the outside dragons in Kunark and Velious, this is a pretty good idea. A guild can claim the spawn by actually having it agroed. If their guild fails to mobilize and engage the target within a set time period, they would lose their claim. No other guild will be able to interact with the dragon unless the kiters from the first guild die. I would expect some level of whining and foul play, though. Damaging a mob to make it summon would be the biggest offense, here. In the event of that, I hope the guild with claim would be ready to engage very quickly, but it defeats the level of respect that would need to be present for this rule to work. If we can calm down the current raiding environment, I would consider this one hell of a pro idea for later expansions and hope that it could discussed in the next guild meeting!
3. Increasing the spawn variance would be interesting but you're severely limiting the extent to which a raiding guild with the "kill the boss" mentality will even bother to log in. Whether or not this type of guild truly exists isn't apparent as of right now as the raiding climate is still in a state of flux. A flat timer before spawn variance even starts only pushes the window further out. Again, the same issue would exist. Since that timer would be known (or could be deduced) it only serves to increase the time between kills. If enough guilds are hot and bothered by the idea of a god or dragon kill, only seeing 2-3 a month is going to piss off a lot of people. On the flipside, this does make dragon and god loot more rare. I'd expect the market for CoFs and RBGs to maintain a highly inflated price for quite some time if either of these ideas were added. Not to say that it's bad but it would be a reasonable expectation. This would not affect overall "mudflation" too much but we'd still see sore spots in the market. I would go so far as to extend this to the idea that all drops should be more rare, whether through spawn rates or drop rate. It would give the game a more epic feeling, but to what extent is that a bad thing? And it's definitely not classic.
4. I don't even know what this would accomplish. As it stands the only bans that took effect were those when guilds first started bickering, and members of guilds that couldn't stop backtalking to GMs. As far as the events go that have been posted on the forums, any bans that occured were not about making stories up but basically disrespecting the staff. There has been suspicion of some activities between guilds but no hard evidence is available either way and because of that, there is very little to gain from it. If anything I'd see this more as an attempt to foster more intervention from GMs by creating a GM/Guide rule that says, "just ban us if we are terrible people" and not so much a deterrent to any particular actions. Enough things are possible in this game that it takes way too much proof to prove. This is a video game, not a courthouse.