Question On Swarming

[cd288]

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

That behaviour can kill zones though and you'd also have people argue over what is a dead zone. "stop doing it when a group comes in" is exactly what wasn't happening and lead us here.

Exactly. It leads people to not even try to do anything in the zone because they just don't want to deal with arguing with the Bard, trying to petition, etc.

It's exactly the type of player experience that zone disruption rules are designed to prevent.

[Zuranthium]

There is no argument though? It's the rule. You tell them to stop and that's it. No different than any regular instance of "kill stealing", which happens far more often.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly. It leads people to not even try to do anything in the zone because they just don't want to deal with arguing with the Bard, trying to petition, etc.

It's exactly the type of player experience that zone disruption rules are designed to prevent.

Yeah. One time in HS I was clearing entrance roamers after being there for an hour and some bard barges from a wing with a train on him and starts kiting right over me. Some of his mobs aggro me and I chose gating out was safest at this point. I ask him what's up with that and he proceeds blaming me for messing his kite and getting aggro. Dude you're kiting OVER ZONE IN at peak times what did you even expect? I let it slide but when I saw the rule change a couple weeks later I wasn't surprised.

On paper it would be possible but I think we're long past the point of trusting people to do the right thing.

[loramin]

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

On paper it would be possible but I think we're long past the point of trusting people to do the right thing.

I regularly buy items in the tunnel, giving my platinum first and asking the person to hand the item to my alt. And I've even gone farther than that: I've lent out key items (eg. a fungal tunic) to nice strangers I've grouped with,

How did I trust people to do the right thing? I didn't: I trusted the staff to enforce the rules they set out (including the "no fraud" one). And I similarly trust them to enforce all the other rules.

You can't pretend you need to trust players to have a rule, when everyone already trusts the staff to enforce every existing rule.

[zelld52]

I got threatened with suspension once for peeling mobs off of a bard's kite in City of Mist.

The bard was kiting the entire Arena, Moat, 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor. I had a group that wanted to move to arena. We told the bard we were moving to arena, and to stop pulling the arena mobs. The bard responded "you can only claim 1 spawn its outdoors."

I started peeling mobs off the bards 60+ mob kite and bringing them to our group. The bard send me nasty tell saying I was scrub, noob, loser, lowlife, etc for interrupting his kite. I /ignored the bard and continued to peel off his massive kite.

GM showed up and despawned a mob i peeled while group was fighting it, and told me

(paraphrasing) "let us handle these disputes, don't take your own action. Technically you broke the PnP by disrupting the bard and you are eligible for a suspension"

[shovelquest]

can try having a friend in DL send a tell asking bard to PL him for 2 or 3 kites so he can ding 56 and offer 20k per kite or something 30k per kite

100k for 3 pulls or something

just keep offering money until he leaves then have your friend lead him on as long as possible until log off.

might work.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I cannot, for the life of me, decipher whether or not you are for or against bard swarming.

But agreed - the petitions around swarming on Green usually centered around 4-5 players - Repeat offenders.

For and against. If a bard is going to do kite, work around others in zone or, if that isn't possible, do it at another hour. If players are killed as a result, rez and mana them back to full, let them in one the xp, etc. Even outdoors, if there are quadders present, leave more than enough mobs up. The resulting xp from kites is already a lot, what's a few less so others can actually multiplayer this MMO?

[Swish]

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

It should be allowed to swarm in dead zones/areas and if that content isn't being utilized then who is going to complain anyway. Just stop doing it if a group comes and wants to kill things in that area.

Try going into a zone full of these sweatlords and setting up camp...

Chardok AOE as an example (2016): [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


They don't want to be disrupted even though they're the ones being disruptive. It's always the way...

(the thread)

[Ennewi]

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

That behaviour can kill zones though and you'd also have people argue over what is a dead zone. "stop doing it when a group comes in" is exactly what wasn't happening and lead us here.

Agreed to an extent, but so many zones are dead on blue and only zem will get them populated. That would make more sense, banning kites from dungeons that receive added zem. It would incentivize bards to group and better learn their class, and those zones would actually be populated, diverting any attention from other dungeons, save for loot.

[Ennewi]

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

Try going into a zone full of these sweatlords and setting up camp...

Chardok AOE as an example (2016): [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


They don't want to be disrupted even though they're the ones being disruptive. It's always the way...

(the thread)

Who was the GM that was known for DTing and banning players for boxing on the spot? Wish there was more of that for other offenses. Makes some sense why there isn't, but still.