Camping Raid Mobs... gone on long enough ?! - Page 18

Pyrocat · #**171** 06-15-2010, 10:20 AM

Quote:

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

I like how the couple people trolling this thread insinuate that IB is a zerg guild.

Yeah.. that's definitely playing the victim card [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't believe I've ever called Divinity a zerg guild. Transcendence used to mass recruit anyone over level 30 and in OOC. DA mass recruits anyone over level 40 and regularly kills raid bosses with over 50 players. One of my friends got a random tell inviting them to DA from a complete stranger. IB was founded on the belief that a small organized force of skilled players will be better and have more fun raiding than a zerg force. It's just a difference in preference.

Quote:

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

They is other guilds, the subject of my statement.

Yes. Obviously. I was asking specifically what guilds you've called a timer on and then successfully downed their target.

Aadill · #**172** 06-15-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

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

Yes. Obviously. I was asking specifically what guilds you've called a timer on and then successfully downed their target.

Both Divinity and DA have successfully called and claimed mobs from each other following the current ruleset.

Pyrocat · #**173** 06-15-2010, 10:25 AM

As for the title of the thread: I don't want to speak for the guild, but I am not happy with the camping situation. Unfortunately, Fish Bait/DA started the strategy of AFK camping raid mobs, and it got them a few kills. So IB reluctantly adapted and beat them (from my PoV) at their own game.

I for one would like to see the rules changed, but I feel very strongly that the system we have now is much better than when we had a forced rotation. I think we have a decent set of rules that encourages competition, but they need a few tweaks.

Pyrocat · #**174** 06-15-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

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

Both Divinity and DA have successfully called and claimed mobs from each other following the current ruleset.

Oh cool, I was unaware of that.

Aadill · #**175** 06-15-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

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

As for the title of the thread: I don't want to speak for the guild, but I am not happy with the camping situation. Unfortunately, Fish Bait/DA started the strategy of AFK camping raid mobs, and it got them a few kills. So IB reluctantly adapted and beat them (from my PoV) at their own game.

I see it as a chess game at the moment.

Each group is still getting mobs but chess is only a 2 opponent game.

guineapig · #**176** 06-15-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

I don't believe I've ever called Divinity a zerg guild.

No, I don't recall you saying such either. However there were others in your guild who have. I recall one such time when we happened to have had a large turn out for a raid (which was to be expected since it was a mob we have been wanting for a while).

I'm not into naming names. It is in the past and really doesn't matter anyway.

Quote:

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

Oh cool, I was unaware of that.

Yeah Pyro, I just try not to mention guild names either in my posts because then stuff can get twisted and misinterpreted. I'm sure you can relate.

I didn't want anyone in DA thinking that I was bragging or some nonsense. As stated, we have also run out of time versus DA.

Quote:

As for the title of the thread: I don't want to speak for the guild, but I am not happy with the camping situation.

I hear ya, and I know there are people in both guilds who share this sentiment.

Quote:

I for one would like to see the rules changed, but I feel very strongly that the system we have now is much better than when we had a forced rotation.

I mostly agree with this. Rotation was done away with when a third guild entered the fray due to fear other guilds following close behind. Rightfully so since the number of current targets at their current spawn rates is way too low to handle 4-5 or more guilds. Could this change with Kunark? Possibly.

We could in theory do a sky rotation when it opens which would stick one guild exclusively up there for a couple of days in exchange for not doing other raid targets during that time. (You essentially would need to do this anyway while you're in sky based on the recent dev posts). This increases the chances for other guilds.

Quote:

I think we have a decent set of rules that encourages competition, but they need a few tweaks.

The only tweak to the current rules that I could come up with that didn't involve any sort of rotation was the simulated server restart idea which I posted about numerous times. People seemed to be into it any it totally simulates the classic raiding experience. Hey, if we can't have drum animations because it was a bug in classic then why can't we do a simulated server reset when like once every week or two all boss mobs pop at the same time? I still think this is not only totally classic but potentially a lot of fun too!

Also, this simulated reset (just the boss mobs, not an actual server reset) would not be in place of the current variant spawn system, just in addition to it.

guineapig · #**177** 06-15-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

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

I see it as a chess game at the moment.

Each group is still getting mobs but chess is only a 2 opponent game.

It's more like Attrition warfare actually.
There's no strategy or skill involved in sitting and waiting.

Aadill · #**178** 06-15-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

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

It's more like Attrition warfare actually.
There's no strategy or skill involved in sitting and waiting.

If you choose to look at it from the perspective of people just not wanting to log in because they hate abiding by the rules as they exist, yes, I agree. That is the very definition of attrition and is appropriate.

I was going more for the idea that in chess, you sometimes make sacrifices of certain pieces to gain advantage over your opponent by exposing vulnerabilities. As of right now, if you want a raid target there is a requirement to move your resources to the best location. If something else spawns and is not as important to you, it will go to your opponent.

Perhaps this is Attrition Chess? or Chessfare? Can we do that, judges?

Taxi · #**179** 06-15-2010, 11:27 AM

To me the best option would be to FFA it, but i dont think itll ever pass here so.

Why did no one comment on the idea of not letting a guild kill a named more than once if theres someone in-line to kill it? Its a dumb idea or people just like perma-locking mobs too much? (And saying "yea, its dumb" without explaining why is not convincing).

It would let everyone get a shot at boss mobs without devs having to micro-manage some clusterfuck guild schedule.

rioisk · #**180** 06-15-2010, 01:50 PM

i like what DA is doing now. Recruit as many as possible and divide up and permacamp every raid mob in window. How is this not expected? The only way to 100% guarantee a kill is to camp for hours ready to engage when the mob spawns. If your forces can cover all the spawns then you perma-win.

I'm sure this will be a problem for them come Kunark though.....