[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior.

certainly true, perhaps I should have let that statement stand. I was just trying to provoke further useful discussion... which apparently I did given the rest of your post.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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)

Sitting actually on the spawn point is one possible strategy, but ultimately, I think people will back off out of aggro range from the spawn precisely because of the reasons you cite. If guilds A, B, and C all have people sitting on the spawn point, initial random aggro is on a player from guild A totally randomly, then guilds B and C lose out, and possibly lose members to AE dmg or early bouncing aggro before a tank gets secured on it. This means that if Guild A ultimately fails, guilds B and C will be in a worse position to contest for the next shot since they will have had players die with little prospect for a res and rebuff until Guild A wipes or wins. On the other hand, if someone from Guild A has initial aggro and Guild B "picks it up" in the initial melee, then grats Guild B, you just got banned... should have paid more attention to the initial aggro message. Either through pre-meditated reasoning, or trial and error, I think most raid forces will quickly conclude that sitting on the spawn point gives at best a random shot at initial aggro as opposed to a skill based chance (reaction time) for standing off.... UPDATE: I have refined the rule to be more precise about handling this situation.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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".

I agree. I'll work on making the language more precise. UPDATE: Done, see main post

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I did not spell this out. The rule doesn't specifically account for this, so I will make sure that is rectified in the re-write. My intention was that the mob is Free For All again, but with no additional aggro messages to determine a priority, it could descend into a KS match. I am considering alternatives. I will update the main post when I have reached a conclusion, or at least a more firm proposal. UPDATE: Done, see main post.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab.

Forgive my ignorance of this situation, but I am not aware of what happened. I don't really want to rehash it in this thread, either though. However, much like camping, this is not an all or nothing proposition. I never expected my rule to eliminate all camping or all KSing. I think it is foolish to expect that from any proposal. Some of it is going to happen. The question is "would it be reduced to a level acceptable to the devs and the playerbase?"

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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").

This is moderated by the similar penalties for false accusations. Under my suggestions, when a petition is made for a KSing or Training violation over a raid target, someone is getting banned, either the petitioner, or the person being petitioned about. Those are high stakes, and they will make people think twice before just crying foul. As a potential petitioner, a player better be sure the logs will back him up and/or consider running fraps.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I predict the behavior that results in a petition to the GMs will decrease with my ruleset. You believe it will not. We are assessing something about the situations differently. So be it.

Originally Posted by astarothel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Sure, "will increase for that period of time" is a nice turn of phrase to make it sound like I am supporting an increase of camping, but we've had guilds camping one spawn for 3+ days... 72 hours... that's what I've heard anyway, I sure as hell wasn't parked in one zone for that long. To me, there is no way to slice a 6 to 12 hour window of camping which involves people keeping their eyeballs on the screen and being actively at the controls so that it becomes "more camping" or "less acceptable" to most raiders on this server than rotations of 15+ people from multiple guilds sitting in a zone for 72+ hours. My plan reduces and changes camping from the status quo.