Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?
|
I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior.
That being said, here are some potential issues:
1) Raid groups will camp right on top of the target's spawn location, allowing it to aggro whomever it will the moment it spawns. These camping groups will presumably be less AFK than they are currently, but the issue still remains that they are camping. An extension of this will be the chaos that ensues, and the raid target's corresponding aggro spam line (it aggro'd on them, but WE picked it up, etc)
2) Redo the wording on the core rule itself to be more clear.
You have 'begin the fight' combined with an engagement based upon aggro.
I assume you mean "the first guild to aggro the target (with message indicator going off) has 15 minutes to do 5% damage to the target, and will subsequently be afforded one opportunity to kill the target".
3) What happens if the mob has been aggro'd and kited around for 15 minutes, but the 5% damage has not been done? The raid target will not issue a new aggro message if/when an other raid group (or groups) attempt to engage it.
4) Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab.
Blaming an entire group for one person's actions is not amazing either. Evidence: Abacab.
"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED DA -- WHAT AN IB LAPDOG"
"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED IB -- DA's CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE"
The second any member, or any group gets a ban they (or their guild) will immediately call foul, questioning the GM decision alleging GM favouritism, or the GM was wrong (fallibility usually asserted through claims of "ignorance or incomplete details regarding the situation").
Any ruleset will have elements of this problem. The system as proposed is frontloaded with the need for GM management and there is nothing in place once GMs have stopped babysitting to stop douchebaggery from commencing again starting a whole new cycle. This is why I believe FFA/first to engage is inherently no better for GM time and involvement than any ruleset that is or will be instituted.
5) A smaller spawn variance will only
increase the camping for that period of time when the spawn window is open. Whether it is active camping or AFK it is irrelevant, camping will increase during those periods.