Why does this have to be so difficult?

[Laok]

Why not a very simple rule like no guild can kill any mob consecutivley? Or even no guild can kill any one mob more than once every 3 times it spawns. seems like that gives more people a chance at the mobs AND allows for that competitive race to the kill. Let 'em shit in socks, one in every 3 spawns anyway.

Screw this tiered guild BS.

[Aaron]

I was hoping someone would start a thread about this. There aren't enough yet.

[Pint]

people are taking this oppurtunity to force the hardcore raiders to surrender and just give them as many uncontested targets as they can get. the non tmo/fe/ib guildsdont even seem to want to compete amongst themselves. free pixel dragons for everyone bc they deserve it!

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Why not a very simple rule like no guild can kill any mob consecutivley? Or even no guild can kill any one mob more than once every 3 times it spawns. seems like that gives more people a chance at the mobs AND allows for that competitive race to the kill. Let 'em shit in socks, one in every 3 spawns anyway.

Screw this tiered guild BS.

There are several simple schemes that many guilds find acceptable. The problem is that no single plan is acceptable to the community. For example, the idea that no one can kill a mob more than 3 times becomes a de facto rotation between the top three guilds.

The final solution certainly needs to be simple in execution and upkeep, but it needs to be complex enough to be acceptable to enough different decision makers.

[Laok]

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

There are several simple schemes that many guilds find acceptable. The problem is that no single plan is acceptable to the community. For example, the idea that no one can kill a mob more than 3 times becomes a de facto rotation between the top three guilds.

The final solution certainly needs to be simple in execution and upkeep, but it needs to be complex enough to be acceptable to enough different decision makers.

It likely would result in top 3 guilds, but that's better than top 1, right? And it forces any guild that kills a raid mob to wait 2 spawns before they can touch it again, so if uber-guild drops Trak, there's at least a chance that one of the other guilds might outpoopsock each other for the next 2 spawns. It gives the people whining about "the chase", "the chase" and gives other people a chance.

[Laok]

Originally Posted by melton80 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That would actually mean top 4 guilds, which is 1 more then the top 3 have suggested, at-least it is a start. His suggestion would mean once u killed the mob u would have to wait for three more kills of that same mob to be able to kill again, 1+3= 4 guilds, your kill then the 3 kills before u can kill again, just a little math lesson for ya. I still see this whole thing going to shit in a month or so anyway, but here is to hoping something ends up working.

It was 1 in 3. No way would TMO agree to killing a mob once a month.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by melton80 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

just a little math lesson for ya.

What I wrote was perhaps sloppy, but I understand the concept well enough; thank you for your concern.

Additionally, this illustrates my point. Some guilds are requesting flat rotations whereas others will not accept a rotation of any sort either tacit or implicit. The point is not the mechanics of any one plan or proposal; it is that opposite ends are attempting to reach a middle ground where no such middle ground is likely to exist. Thus, the OP's question is answered. It has to be difficult and complex because it involves the balancing of difficult and complex situations.

[Laok]

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

What I wrote was perhaps sloppy, but I understand the concept well enough; thank you for your concern.

Additionally, this illustrates my point. Some guilds are requesting flat rotations whereas others will not accept a rotation of any sort either tacit or implicit. The point is not the mechanics of any one plan or proposal; it is that opposite ends are attempting to reach a middle ground where no such middle ground is likely to exist. Thus, the OP's question is answered. It has to be difficult and complex because it involves the balancing of difficult and complex situations.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Something simple is less likely to be broken or abused. It is not a rotation, it is simply a rule against consecutive kills on the same mob, allowing for that coveted chase as well as allowing other guilds a chance at that chace when one guild has the manpower to completely lock anyone else out of contention. There can't be a 1 or even a 2 guild monopoly with this.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This makes absolutely no sense.

Something simple is less likely to be broken or abused. It is not a rotation, it is simply a rule against consecutive kills on the same mob, allowing for that coveted chase as well as allowing other guilds a chance at that chace when one guild has the manpower to completely lock anyone else out of contention. There can't be a 1 or even a 2 guild monopoly with this.

I completely agree with you that the actual rules should be incredibly simple, self-policing, and not easily abused. This is why I personally favor "hands off periods" where no guild can bag more than X number of mobs for the first Y days of the month. That's incredibly simple.

You asked "why not a very simple rule". The answer is because the organizations negotiating cannot agree on which, if any, of the "simple rules" to adopt. Thus, the negotiations instead have devolved into complex schemes and systems. Why? Because the simple plans are simply not within the zone of agreement.

Originally Posted by Laok

It likely would result in top 3 guilds, but that's better than top 1, right?

Regarding the consecutive kill rule, if you put a limit so that a guild cannot kill a mob twice in a row, it becomes a situation where two guilds will likely dominate the mob. In this case, TMO and FE. If you say that no guild can kill a mob more than once in the last three times it pops then it will be TMO, FE, and probably IB. This order will continue until the situation become a sort of rotation for each individual mob. It naturally establishes a pecking order. These situations are undesirable to some guilds because 1) it prevents focusing on specific mobs and 2) it lessens the competitive nature of the server by precluding the competition from contesting any given kill.

The issue is not "only TMO is getting kills." That problem would indeed be solved by the above rule. The problem is that smaller guilds are unable to meaningfully compete and participate in the end game due to the extreme dominance of several hardcore guilds under the variance system. Spread the kills more evenly among the hardcore does nothing to address the problem of casual exclusion. (NOTE: For the diction hawks I use casual here to define something other than TMO and FE because it's easy. Deal with it)

In short, no one simple solution has found enough broad-base support. When you eliminate the impossible (simple solutions), you're stuck with whatever is left over no matter how complex or unlikely.

[Lazie]

Because the big guilds would split into separate guilds because there wouldn't be enough loot distribution for the amount of members. The same hardcore players would dominate the raid scene still just with different guild tags. Before you say that shouldn't be allowed or it is breaking of rules. It wouldn't be. People join these guilds because they kill the mobs they want loot from, if there isn't enough mobs and loot to go around they will simply form their own guilds to compete in the system.