My proposal for Raiding guilds and GMs of P1999

[Aadill]

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

You get what you give and give what you get. Reciprocity is a bitch. Live by it, die by it.

What this guy said.

It's not that it's about ill-will or disrespect. It's about following a ruleset that is fair enough that you are given a chance. One problem I do find is that none of the suggestions thus far really *DO* offer much to pickup raids or what have you, so I can understand your viewpoint. Unfortunately very little "standing up" is going on from groups that aren't receiving what they perceive as a fair chance. The "fuck you" attitude can work if you have your shit together. I don't know what FB accomplished because I wasn't there at the time.

If you're willing to take the risk of not having anything to fall back on, then more power to you. Abacab is doing it. With the current ruleset it's difficult to maintain a force and therefore his claims to boss mobs aren't upheld. He is proving a point, though.

Whether we like it or not we are following the rules as they exist today. As many have said, it's not fun. Frankly I'm having a blast chit chatting with people and cracking jokes with some IB members while we all wait it out. I've helped get some gear for some applicants/new members and even got some gear for myself $$$. This doesn't work for everyone and I'm sure it eventually gets boring/frustrating.

[Toony]

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

SOE sat on this for awhile with the same problems and you know what solution they eventually came up with?

Instancing.

I know, I know, instancing is for pussies.

But it does solve the problem.

Pick your poison. Solution or no solution.

Yes ultimately they did introduce instancing, but not until after an expansion we wont be playing.

But yeah, this blades sharp on both sides.

[bufferofnewbies]

Everyone that complains that something isnt classical when it comes to raids should stop raiding. The 'origional concept' of eq did not have raiding on the list at all, it was supposed to be 6 man content only with some mobs just plain unkillable. That's why it never had a raid window to start with and you had to have someone in killing group hold the corpse until it opened up for whomever won the loot.

If anyone disagrees with my statement above, you should check out the uber loots on the origonal dragon kills. (Not the stuff given out later for it.)

[Wrei]

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

This sounds like a Chinese take on the Korean War. Please keep this kind of stuff out of the discussion.

Who are you again? I gave out a rather more truthful account of the brief raiding history on this server. Truth hurts, but it's relevant to point out how you guys are still spinning this thing into a "let's fix the problem here/If you try to spin your trolling". While ignoring the fact your the cause of it. Kind of like the guy who has his hand stuck in a vending machine, because he won't let go of that damn soda can. Just sad...

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

1. Having a hard server kick for AFKing is game changing for people other than raiders. If the server was running on a cable modem in someone's cellar and you want to keep the amount of data transfer down by keeping the population low, then fine. This server has a fairly pro setup and there is no reason to boot people off the server. If, perhaps, Rogean deems it reasonable to make it so as the server population grows, then so be it. This, however, is a "feature" that would have to be decided not by the players but by the GM staff. As the ruleset stands there is nothing against AFK camping. If they implemented this, their own server rules would be moot.

Something to note: a roll call clause was put into effect in the player made rulset to allow a guild to take rights from another guild if they were AFK to the point that they could not meet the minimum requirements to claim a raid force when a mob spawns. It has been used multiple times with little to no success. That tells me that there are enough people active that adding this rule will not alter the gamescape much.

Please explain to me how a 1 hour kick will affect a non raider. How is that game changing? The person sitting afk in EC will suddenly find himself on server select... The person in an xp zone gets affected how? I'll argue it may even prevent dumb deaths by going afk. Server saves some bandwidth as you kindly pointed out. If anything it will ONLY affect raiders. Your saying camping sucks...but will keep doing it because it's within the rules...and will veto this idea because it will adversely affect your guild. I'm sure if DA was dominating everything, you'd be the first in line to preach about non camping [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

2. Dumesh's idea still focuses on FFA and is only really applicable, as he said, to outside boss encounters. There are no outside boss encounters right now that are appropriate for this sort of thing unless you have very particular stipulations for CT. For future encounters it may be useful but you're relying on everyone to have the same timer, and to respect it. Not to mention the fact that by attempting to steal agro, you're pretty much going against server rules of attempting to KS engaged mobs. Find me a situation where you're not going to have an opposing raid force attempting to agro the mob off of the original kiter. If, on the flipside, you are saying that once agro a guild would have 15 minutes to get ready and engage while the kiter(s) kite, we might be on to something. I will say that for all of the outside dragons in Kunark and Velious, this is a pretty good idea. A guild can claim the spawn by actually having it agroed. If their guild fails to mobilize and engage the target within a set time period, they would lose their claim. No other guild will be able to interact with the dragon unless the kiters from the first guild die. I would expect some level of whining and foul play, though. Damaging a mob to make it summon would be the biggest offense, here. In the event of that, I hope the guild with claim would be ready to engage very quickly, but it defeats the level of respect that would need to be present for this rule to work. If we can calm down the current raiding environment, I would consider this one hell of a pro idea for later expansions and hope that it could discussed in the next guild meeting!

The way I read it is, whoever tags the mob first has the rights to that mob for the next 15min. It's really simple... if you feel you can engage the mob then initiate the aggro. If your guild fails then you forfeit the right to the boss, so in essence no one will "accidentally" aggro a boss or claim another guild made me aggro the boss. Bosses requiring a planar clear can be worked out differently but can still be within the spirit of this new rule.

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

3. Increasing the spawn variance would be interesting but you're severely limiting the extent to which a raiding guild with the "kill the boss" mentality will even bother to log in. Whether or not this type of guild truly exists isn't apparent as of right now as the raiding climate is still in a state of flux. A flat timer before spawn variance even starts only pushes the window further out. Again, the same issue would exist. Since that timer would be known (or could be deduced) it only serves to increase the time between kills. If enough guilds are hot and bothered by the idea of a god or dragon kill, only seeing 2-3 a month is going to piss off a lot of people. On the flipside, this does make dragon and god loot more rare. I'd expect the market for CoFs and RBGs to maintain a highly inflated price for quite some time if either of these ideas were added. Not to say that it's bad but it would be a reasonable expectation. This would not affect overall "mudflation" too much but we'd still see sore spots in the market. I would go so far as to extend this to the idea that all drops should be more rare, whether through spawn rates or drop rate. It would give the game a more epic feeling, but to what extent is that a bad thing? And it's definitely not classic.

I don't know about your guild but I assure you IB will always bother to log on for boss kills with or without the variance. This serves to further deter "camping" which was the whole point of this thread no? Instead of 4 Nagafen we might see 2~3... Will the casual player care? No, how is that ever going to affect them? Will the campers care? Fu@#$ yeah! It's one thing to ask someone to sit afk for 5 days but 10? Geez, there are human limits to going full retard. Once again this is to PREVENT camping... which was what we're trying to do here to find a solution. Mudflation? Are you serious? How many CoF and RBB's are floating in the EC tunnel? Your pro camping stance is understandable but come on that's some weak argument there...

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

4. I don't even know what this would accomplish. As it stands the only bans that took effect were those when guilds first started bickering, and members of guilds that couldn't stop backtalking to GMs. As far as the events go that have been posted on the forums, any bans that occured were not about making stories up but basically disrespecting the staff. There has been suspicion of some activities between guilds but no hard evidence is available either way and because of that, there is very little to gain from it. If anything I'd see this more as an attempt to foster more intervention from GMs by creating a GM/Guide rule that says, "just ban us if we are terrible people" and not so much a deterrent to any particular actions. Enough things are possible in this game that it takes way too much proof to prove. This is a video game, not a courthouse.

How about it will bring back some INTEGRITY? Yeah I know it's a hard quality to find in your heart but think about it. If you slap the guy crying wolf every week he'll whine about why he got slapped. If you gank the guy crying wolf every week, we won't ever have to hear his retarded lies. Seriously, lying/fabricating/distorting the truth is a bad thing in case you didn't know. There's NO CONSEQUENCES at this time... which allows sketchbags to pretty much claim/say anything without fear from repercussion. So why is it bad to perma ban someone that was proven to have blatantly lied about an event going forward? Some will still try but will at least pay the price for it if they are ever caught. You are correct, this is a video game and not a RL courthouse... if so why do we bother with rules? Why not make everything FFA, train each other... Because we want people to enjoy their experience playing this game. If getting lied to in order to get a favorable GM decision is your idea of fun then I got nothing to say on this matter.

PS: Seriously who are you again?

[astarothel]

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

PS: Seriously who are you again?

Funny. Most people know who Aadill is. Who are you?

[Wrei]

Funny. Most people know who Aadill is. Who are you?

I'm the IB guy who took a break and came back~ My question was rather about "what guild are you from?" I'm deducing it's DA but shrug could be wrong~

Speaking of which who are you? I'm kidding... the only thing I'd like to add is, if we're all unhappy about the camping situation (an assumption i know), we should put as many deterrents as possible. Go with the full measure of things instead of doing it in a half ass fashion.

[Erasong]

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

the only thing I'd like to add is, if we're all unhappy about the camping situation (an assumption i know), we should put as many deterrents as possible. Go with the full measure of things instead of doing it in a half ass fashion.

[Aadill]

I cannot verify or deny your claims of truth, but I am glad you understand my reference. The important thing to note is that from an outsiders point of view, it doesn't look to be an impartial, accurate timeline. Perhaps it is, but I know for a fact one of your points is wrong. DA was formed to remove itself from Salty's leadership. As of right now, I'm under the perception we are adjusting to the fact that a) FB rejected the original raid rules and b) DA never had a say in them.

On to your counterpoints: Upon further clarification I do see what you are saying, but there are issues with where these rules may belong.

1) Game changing is game changing. I don't care who it affects or to what extent it affects them unless it's the owner of the server/staff, because you are altering the code of the game with the intention to affect, even as you say, part of the population of the server. As I said, I'm mainly pointing out the fact that this is not a serverwide population decision until the GMs decide to make it one. To clarify: this doesn't belong in a ruleset for raids. It is a separate suggestion that should be brought up with the GMs with listed arguments as to why it should be put in place. With that said, multiple people have said there are ways around it so I'm not sure how much it actually provides in terms of a solid rule that is worth adding for the guilds to operate with civility.

2) I see this as a great possibility but it does not work in some situations. No raid force will keep their distance once the main target is in sight, because they want to be the ones to leapfrog and obtain agro first. That's why I am arguing that outdoor zone encounters that you see in Kunark and Velious makes this a valid idea but not for the encounters that exist right now. CT is a special case, Naggy and Vox are inside with limited space to agro/maintain agro and not pull on to your raid or another raid. Most of the other encounters also fall under this same category. I don't know how it worked before when things were still in a state of FFA, but I can imagine it wasn't pretty. Feel free to enlighten me, but I truly do not see how two, three, or four opposing raids are going to look at the current raid targets and consider that reasonable.

3) I kinda like the idea that the encounters would be slightly more rare, so I'm not disagreeing. I'm fairly certain that all of the guilds are willing to continue to log in but I'm simply pointing out the fact that if the majority of interest of any particular guild is simply for boss encounters, then very little else will go on and interest will be lost. That's a hypothetical that I cannot prove or disprove but I invite the probability of it to be discussed as an issue of server population. I assume that as a spokesman for IB you have discussed this with your new recruits as a possibility that less raids might be on the table and do indeed have their assurance on your claim.


4) We bother with rules because we should be able to follow them with civility. We bother with rules because it serves as a check to power and the lack thereof. I don't see the point of this rule only because it would probably be easier for the GM to look at the petition, jump to the zone, despawn the mob, and leave. No mediation, no squabble over whose evidence is more correct because it would merit nothing. Why, if they have this power, would they care to hear your case and my case about a situation? I unfortunately have not been present for the reasons that GMs have been summoned in the past but I read all the drama about it. I can claim suspicion about a lot of things, and I can claim admission of fault on others. The idea that the GMs favor any group gets old. We think you are favored, you think we are favored. We could run a statistical study on the number of times the GMs reluctantly log in and mediate issues between forces, and who they favor, or we could just stop this argument.

As for who I am: I am Aadill Pickle, class leader Ranger of Dark Ascension. I played a ranger because I literally love the idea of taking DTs and I like to always hear the sound of a barking dog every two seconds when I attack something. I honestly have no idea who you are other than from your two posts on this forum. I am not here to fight for my guild's wishes to beat you out on the majority of every cycle of mobs, nor am I here to express my guild's discontent about not getting the majority of every cycle of mobs. I am not here to shoot down every idea, only to give input and receive input back in hopes that we can expound upon those ideas that have merit and actually work something out that will result in LESS animosity among players. Competition is good and that is what makes this game great, but I do hope you're not rocking the boat just to rock the boat. We're all on it.

I have asked to attend the next meeting to further explore the ideas we've come up with and have not received an okay on this. With that in mind I am maintaining a forum presence to at least further some ideas here.


Also: Yes. No Half-assling it.

[Cyrano]

I'm all for less GM involvement and people getting to actually fight for shit.

My main concern is with the current rule set how does this affect Traknon? If you instill the rotation doesn't this hinder the server from developing a guild hierarchy and potentially injure chances at accessing and clearing VP?

Right now arguments about these mobs are moot. There are plenty of mobs and this server by no means has an inordinate amount of players. The problem is that too many people feel they should be given shots at mobs because a) they're seeking some form of nostalgia from live and can no longer offer the same time commitment that they did back on live or b) they don't realize that the server is too new for a raid guild hierarchy to be established. So what we end up with is a ridiculous amount of rules that are semi-enforced by GMs just enough to scare people into thinking they might be perma-banned for things that happened constantly on live with no repercussion outside of server blackballing or ridicule.

With that said, if this mindset continues into Kunark it will remain prevalent throughout the course of this server. The faster a guild can get what they need from a raid mob and move on to new content the quicker the people with less time, dedication, or desire to play can access that content. My guild currently doesn't kill Maestro simply because we don't need anything from him. Will this change is we get a bard app? Most likely. But after a few kills he'll be back to being off of our radar.

So my solution has been and remains to take the gloves off and let us play. You guys don't care about the disdain and sour attitudes between IB and DA, what you more casual players want is to live your lives while experiencing some fun nostalgic events and having fun with people you enjoy playing EQ with. We are not of the same mold at this stage in our lives and the longer we're forced to share mobs instead of rightfully competing for them the longer you guys are going to have to wait for us to move past those mobs.

[Molitoth]

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

Everyone that complains that something isnt classical when it comes to raids should stop raiding. The 'origional concept' of eq did not have raiding on the list at all, it was supposed to be 6 man content only with some mobs just plain unkillable. That's why it never had a raid window to start with and you had to have someone in killing group hold the corpse until it opened up for whomever won the loot.

If anyone disagrees with my statement above, you should check out the uber loots on the origonal dragon kills. (Not the stuff given out later for it.)

Project1999 is a server set out to imitate classic as we once knew it as close as possible.

The problem with this is that you cannot imitate the 1999 player base mindset. People did not know what raiding was back then, except a certain few of us who happened to get to that state. Even when guilds had to compete for kills, it was 2 or maybe 3 guilds on a server which allowed a rotation to be possible.

With this server, the problem is that everyone has the raid-now mindset and there simply isn't enough to go around. These mobs have been killed over 10 years ago. The strats are not new, the items are not new, and everything is a cake-walk. There are now 4-5 guilds able to raid, and a lot more on the way.

I think the majority of us are here to relive the experience and have fun, and I think Instancing would be a good solution. Sure it would kill the fun of competition, but really is racing to a mob that fun? It doesn't seem like it with all the bitching in this thread.

Although even if this was a solution, could the dev's even implement it? It would most likely have to be VP, PoF, PoH, and PoS only. It would be hard to instance solb for naggy, and sebilis for Trak. Those dragons would still have to be first come first serve basis.

So in reality if the planes were instanced, there could still be the competition for Naggy, vox, trak, outdoor dragons, etc. Thus leaving something for the other guilds to do after they got beat to these mobs. Which might also fix the amount of item farming going on in lowerguk and every other named mob in game that drops decent loot. These people have nothing to do = farm items = lower end players no place to group for xp.