Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[HippoNipple]

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

The risk of the aggressor is losing and having to take their toys and play somewhere else for the lockout. I don't see how this is a detrimental issue to the server when compared to being corpse camped.

There are two basic concerns the winning guild has when the other team calls LnS.

1) Use LnS to get corpses and then run off to snipe a different raid target not in contention yet.

If no PnP was in place the winning guild could have a small force keep corpses on lock down while the winning guilds raid force downed all targets they wanted.

2) Use LnS to get corpses and move towards the raid target if the fighting didn't happen in the zone of the raid target. Example would be dieing in EJ/TT and using LnS to move into Seb for Trak.

The tactic that is trying to be avoided is a group running around trying to snipe mobs, losing in PvP, then using LnS to get a free pass to run away to snipe another mob. It ends up being a game of cat and mouse that when the cat catches the mouse there are no real consequences to losing. The cat essentially has to let the mouse go and then try to find it again.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

this is a rough draft of an amendment that i would make regarding the current force LNS policy; this would not apply to small scale LNS in non-raid zones so that random newbie dying in crushbone won't be affected by this

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In large scale PvP or any PvP in a contested raid zone, a force may call Force LNS at their bind(s) after they have died. They are then locked out of the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zone(s) for 1-2 hours. After that initial lock out, they may then zone in, gather their corpse(s), and then leave. They are then locked out from the contested zone(s) and any adjacent zones for 1-2 hours. Their lock out timer begins when all members of the force have left those zones. The lock out timer may also end if/when the opposing force also leaves those zones. The opposing(winning) force may dictate up to one zone adjacent to the lock out zones that you may not move into. If you are in the same guild as someone who is on Force LNS, you are also considered to share the same lock outs as them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this addresses the current issues of there being basically no risk/punishment for losing raid PvP and also the issue of forward LNSing

examples:

if you call force LNS in sebilis, you are then locked out of sebilis and trakanon's teeth

if you call force LNS in skyfire, you are then locked out of skyfire, veeshan's peak, overthere, and burning woods

if you call force LNS in kael, you are then locked out of kael, eastern wastes, and wakening land. the winning force can then dictate that you are not allowed to move into skyshrine

pls give feedback

It'd take some more thinking/ looking into, but this is one of the reasonable suggestions. Would have to see what adjacent zone lockouts would cause shenanigans. The primary issue I have is enforcing the initial lockout. People that are bound in a locked zone, or claim to be bound in the locked zone is the first that comes to mind.

I'm still not sold that there needs to be more of a penalty to the loser besides losing whatever they were fighting for.

[heartbrand]

The irony of the people crying for there to be a penalty being the people who would suffer most from their being said penalty.

[daasgoot]

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

The irony of the people crying for there to be a penalty being the people who would suffer most from their being said penalty.

It's not ironic at all.

I don't lobby only for things will help me.. Even thought he PNP assists the smaller guilds in being able to snipe mobs, i still think its some carebear shit and should be removed.

[dis_mornin]

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

It'd take some more thinking/ looking into, but this is one of the reasonable suggestions. Would have to see what adjacent zone lockouts would cause shenanigans. The primary issue I have is enforcing the initial lockout. People that are bound in a locked zone, or claim to be bound in the locked zone is the first that comes to mind.

I'm still not sold that there needs to be more of a penalty to the loser besides losing whatever they were fighting for.

Biggest issue with PnP is the amount of frivolous petitions the GMs cater to and then mindlessly suspend people over. If that was deterred and only true pnp violations such as continuing to bind camp someone who called lns resulted in punishment then I think things will be ok. Basically currently on the box PnP is being used as a weapon against people and being exploited by the loser to hurt the winner because they know some well wrote up BS petition will result in 7 day suspy when all along winner may not have been acting out of malice or loser couldve just handled the situation differently.

One suggestion I have for velious though is to extend the lock out period for certain raid zones. If a guild wins PvP in say Kael forcing a lockout of loser. Lock out should be for 3 hours or until raid force leaves.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

There are two basic concerns the winning guild has when the other team calls LnS.

1) Use LnS to get corpses and then run off to snipe a different raid target not in contention yet.

If no PnP was in place the winning guild could have a small force keep corpses on lock down while the winning guilds raid force downed all targets they wanted.

2) Use LnS to get corpses and move towards the raid target if the fighting didn't happen in the zone of the raid target. Example would be dieing in EJ/TT and using LnS to move into Seb for Trak.

The tactic that is trying to be avoided is a group running around trying to snipe mobs, losing in PvP, then using LnS to get a free pass to run away to snipe another mob. It ends up being a game of cat and mouse that when the cat catches the mouse there are no real consequences to losing. The cat essentially has to let the mouse go and then try to find it again.

1) If there was no LNS, why wouldn't the loser guild not just avoid fighting in the first place and snipe targets anyways?

2) This I can get behind, and think that letting the winning force have a say in the locked zones, or something like the adjacent zone rule would be appropriate.

I don't see a problem with loser guild getting mobs that winner guild isn't prioritising acquiring or denying.

[Rednaros]

I think LNS is stupid and is used to ban fish
force lns is reasonable though

[Luniz]

the reason PnP was created was because Nihilum's toxic lock down of all mobs forced guilds attempting to break-in and contest being corpse camped

Now the argument is that competing guilds need PnP abolished to compete? ok

[Raev]

Small CS derail about the lag: when you have N players in a small space, the server must inform each of them about the presence of the other N-1 players. This makes it an O(N^2) algorithm, and basically you can't throw hardware at problems that are more than maybe O(N log N)

TLDR: don't expect buying a bigger box to fix your lag

[HippoNipple]

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

1) If there was no LNS, why wouldn't the loser guild not just avoid fighting in the first place and snipe targets anyways?

The loser guild is trying to avoid fighting. That is not in question.

Assume there are two equal raid targets. Small guild tries to snipe, gets caught and loses a PvP skirmish. They call LnS and run off to the next raid target while the winning team meds up after PvP skirmish and then completes the target they fought and won for. They both get a raid target.

Basically the request is to punish the losing team somewhat. If there was no LnS the winning team could camp corpses and down both raid targets. With a lockout before looting your corpse it would be similar to this without the players griefing the losing players directly.

With much more than 2 targets the losing guild won't miss all their opportunity to raid that day, but losing a PvP skirmish will make them miss out on 1-2 hours of raiding instead of no time penalty what so ever.