Guys.. you imply that this is what the GMs want and that we are punishing you on purpose. I had talks with both guildleaders stating, very clearly, that I didn't want GMs to have to manage this.
(Otto or Zyrek, do you mind if I post what I told you in our conversations? For reference sake, I want the truth known of what I said. Either approval will work because I said the same thing to both of you.)
Here is how I thought things should/would work. People show up, get their raid force ready.. first guild with large enough raid force for target at staging area gets first attempt. This is just how I thought it *should* work, but in the end, the players should mediate.
The term leap-frogging was also mentioned. My experiences with this were you leap-frogged on the WAY to the raid target, not KSed waiting players. By this mentality, you are asking the GMs to ignore petitions of killstealing and training? Because that's what is gonna happen. As soon as PVE becomes pvepvp, the petitions will come.. and cannot be ignored.
Here is a direct quote from Everquest policy about the inability to share. "Someone" said this sounds like an exp camp policy. To me, it sounds like any camp/raid situation. Since you guys are all-knowing about how things should be, maybe you can produce some of your own evidence?
Quote:
Another player and I wish to hunt in the same area, but he doesn't want to share. Should I petition?
Before petitioning, you should be aware that no one group or player can "own" an area. In addition, the Play Nice Policy states that in such a situation, both parties must compromise with one another. If no resolution can be met, then you may petition for assistance as a last resort, and a member of the Customer Support Team will mandate a binding compromise to the disagreement. It is strongly suggested that the groups involved make every attempt to resolve the dispute without the involvement of a member of the Customer Support Team.
|
We had forced rotations on my live server.. because it was full of rude/leet da`kor, midnight sojourn, and an asian alliance of multi guilds. The leaders.. came together and decided how to manage their people. A /random 100 determined the order of kills, and guilds and even pick-up days were added in the rotation.
In the event a guild couldn't come to an agreement with another guild, things like rotations are put in place. As soon as there were PVE deaths related to guild v guild in a non-consensual setting, guilds were disbanded.
I want nothing more than just to work on content and listen to feedback. The point is to make it a classic server. You can use the rhetoric of "non-classic" all you want, but in the end, diplomacy with each other is the way to go. I think "competition" means showing up first in the best gear with the best players and consistently downing targets; not killstealing. On the flip-side, immediately coming to the GMs isn't the way to go either. Per the rules, "If no resolution can be met, then you may petition for assistance as a last resort."
I see both sides of the argument.. and I gave you guys over a week to work it out. It's easy to say, "non-classic, remove", but much harder to explain your points with facts and without emotion.
We are gonna be working with npc variance timers and a variety of other shit just to appease you.. but in the end, we're just babysitting. Maybe you should promote guild "ambassadors" that can talk with each other if your guildleaders cannot communicate.
I appreciate the suggestions for alternative solutions. They are always welcomed.
It only took 4 posts to derail the topic.