OFFICIAL PROPOSAL from FE/TMO

[Aaron]

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

The whole thing seems like a headache with a lot of paperwork involved. Difficult to explain, gonna be difficult to enforce. What is so bad about removing variance and having some kind of a rotation or a limit that a guild can't re-kill the same target during the next three spawns?

Staff specifically said to come to an agreement undervthe assumption that the devs aren't changing anything. So coming to an agreement based on the need for the devs to change things is kinda a bad idea.

[Pheer]

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

" we have agreed only to track and engage them during this time if there is a need for a specific item."

...Except for the big where if TMO alt #23049834 needs a piece of gear, TMO will totally track that thing. =)

Good try.

-Cross

Did you even read it? Thats referring to the lower priority mobs. The high priority mobs would be completely hands off for the category A guilds during that time. I havent even made up my mind one way or the other about how I feel about this plan, but lets at least not make shit up in the process of discussing it.

[-Catherin-]

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

We're heavily negotiating to have these variances reduced. Otherwise, we suggested sitting out on each priority mob that spawns first each week.

This is no better than the original proposal of 7 days. even worse in ways. that's 4? priority targets in an entire month. no thanks.

This whole thing has a lot of holes in it. but leaving each of the first "priority" targets up of the month is a no brainer. Anyone who reads into this alternate suggestion can see it's not better at all

[Pheer]

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

Yeah WTF is that BS clause?

What exactly is bullshit about it? Its stating that category A guilds would be limited to the lower priority mobs during that time period, and also that they might not necessarily even kill those either unless they actually need something from them.

[goshozal]

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

Surely youre not suggesting that FE/IB would seriously be able to break the rules of an agreement like that and avoid consequences through some kind of e-politics loophole when the gms already said they would be enforcing whatever the players decide on.

That is exactly what I am suggesting. The agreement says that the GM's can always override the council but will defer to it. There is a potential for abuse here.

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

By that same argument ANY guilds on the "council" could form an alliance against the others and make themselves immune, you're simply singling out FE/IB because they already have had a relationship in place.

Are you suggesting that two guilds which raid together are just going to vote for their partner guild to be sanctioned?

[drktmplr12]

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

not really. the only thing they have left to gain from Kunark is padding their RMT accounts.

worthless post is worthless

[Yinikren]

Wait, so IB didn't even endorse this?

No wonder this proposal is retarded.

Keep guilds where they are, no penalty for attempting VP mobs. One week on, one week off for what sets of mobs the guilds can attempt. All this 3 week bullshit does is game mobs towards TMOs 3 week stint since the average spawn time of most 7 day mobs ends up being like 8 1/2 days. There's a good chance we won't even see mobs the one week we can attempt "priority mobs" without you breathing down our necks.

And lol at the "unless we need gear from unprioritized mob we won't track it". Hahahahaha. You guys are fuckin' funny.

[OriginalQin]

Originally Posted by Bamz4l [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

tl;dr

i'd like to make an official proposal to keep all proposals to a two-sentence minimum. This is a sample second sentence.

Amazing. Let me try:

Guild leaders roll once per spawn cycle on each named raid target. Winner gets priority; second place and cascading downward take priority in the event of a failure.


(I cheated with a semicolon.)

[OriginalQin]

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

Staff specifically said to come to an agreement undervthe assumption that the devs aren't changing anything. So coming to an agreement based on the need for the devs to change things is kinda a bad idea.

That may be the case, but there's been a lot of talk about negotiations to have variances reduced or removed. Nevertheless, my proposal works either way. Just the variance becomes obsolete at that point. But I'd rather go with a lottery.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I think the system as presented is reasonably fair, but I think it is a bit complex which poses a problem to its longevity. A straight-up hands off 7 days (excluding vp) would likely be much easier to implement.

Any guilds that raid together for a mob more than, say 3 times for any reason, in a 90 day period will be treated as 1 guild for the following 90 days. They will shuffle their representatives and be given a single vote in any decisions.

A guild should be a major guild if it takes a certain # of targets in a month OR it kills a VP dragon which makes it major for a certain amount of time.