Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[Buhbuh]

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

The lockout affects any zones in which large fighting/deaths occurred. "In large scale PvP there is no limit to the number of zones a force can be locked out of. If a fight took place across multiple zones the lockout will apply to all zones a PvP related death occurred in."

I'm not saying LNS is perfect, and if R99 was just being started I would advocate against it, mostly for the community building reasons above. However, since it's been a part of the creation of the culture of R99, taking it away would decimate the population and general enjoyment. Twinks who are "the slayers of virgins" are celebrated in the larger circles of R99.

I don't think straight removal of LNS is the answer, but there are definitely changes that could be made. It's supposed to be a tradeoff for the scooter, caused by the lockout. Perhaps one possibility is increasing the duration, or allowing the victor to name the zone (likely more important for guild vs guild engagements)?

I think it's ideal to have meaningful PvP, without punishing people that aren't twinked beyond reason in the lower levels. I wouldn't expect the red community to step up to bat for that.

In guild v. guild setting it needs to be more stringent on the loser of a PvP engagement. There's no risk right now. I want to feel like I'm totally screwed if I lose a massive fight, at least for a couple of hours.

The loophole to losing over contention of a mob is mass plugging, calling Force LNS, unplugging and porting out immediately to snipe other mobs. That's literally the culture we've built with the current PnP. There are no fights that force guilds to commit fully once engaged in a fight. The best fights in the game have been in VP because there's no way out.

You don't need to abolish PnP at the raid level, you just need a timeframe on when guilds can actually zone in and LNS once they've called it in mass PvP. That's the purpose of locking a guild out of a zone from getting their corpses for a set amount of time once Force LnS is called. There's plenty of options with that - like only being able to LNS once the victorious guild has left the zone, or only being able to LNS after two hours have elapsed since the LNS was called (or less time than that). Being allowed into a raid zone to clean up corpses once slain and then walk away virtually unscathed is really kind of stupid.

If you're contending over raid mobs, you're no longer a newbie on Red. You should expect some form of risk coming at other guilds, no?

[Guide.Chroma]

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

The same desyncing that happened in kc is the same kind of desyncing when someone is training the entire fear zone and runs it too close to the raid. Whether or not people are zoning in is not the issue, the zone just couldn't handle that many people in that small of an area.

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.

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

In guild v. guild setting it needs to be more stringent on the loser of a PvP engagement. There's no risk right now. I want to feel like I'm totally screwed if I lose a massive fight, at least for a couple of hours.

The loophole to losing over contention of a mob is mass plugging, calling Force LNS, unplugging and porting out immediately to snipe other mobs. That's literally the culture we've built with the current PnP. There are no fights that force guilds to commit fully once engaged in a fight. The best fights in the game have been in VP because there's no way out.

You don't need to abolish PnP at the raid level, you just need a timeframe on when guilds can actually zone in and LNS once they've called it in mass PvP. That's the purpose of locking a guild out of a zone from getting their corpses for a set amount of time once Force LnS is called. There's plenty of options with that - like only being able to LNS once the victorious guild has left the zone, or only being able to LNS after two hours have elapsed since the LNS was called (or less time than that). Being allowed into a raid zone to clean up corpses once slain and then walk away virtually unscathed is really kind of stupid.

If you're contending over raid mobs, you're no longer a newbie on Red. You should expect some form of risk coming at other guilds, no?

That's an interesting idea...though logistically a little tricky. Under LNS right now, the reward for the winner is to continue on in the zone without harassment (a la the lockout). Rez timers are something that should be noted in the corpse lockout proposal. Though if your goal is to prevent guilds from sniping other targets after a fight, why wouldn't they just avoid the fight and go snipe?

I think that the LNS rules at the raid level should just ensure that your raid is uncontested in that area after. If you want to contest other mobs with a fight, then you need to be there to fight when a rival goes for it. Although the idea may seem silly that the fallen force can just loot and go on their merry way, I don't see how the current system is hurting anyone but the monopoly.

[FaithlessKR]

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

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.

This wasn't a small selection of people desyncing, our entire raid desynced upon zoning in and running to the corner by the right moat. I can guarantee you that some of these nerds live on the east coast with good internet (sub 20 ping) and have monster computers to boot.

We weren't zone hopping, so the issue isn't going to be fixed by making the argument that we all need to be in the same zone and stay in the same zone. They prepared several hours in advance with a very large force with their casters and rezzers being g-fluxxed onto the super block (so taking the zone prior with our 20-30 people also wasn't feasible).

There isn't a way for the 2 groups to co-exist in that zone prior to the mob being about to spawn. And there's no way for me to build a computer that will drop my ping below the 115-130 ms that I'm always in in the Pacific Northwest. So this in essence is a server hardware issue, especially since I've been in several 70v70s in the past with absolutely no lag or desyncing whatsoever.

I've heard that people spoke with rogean and karnors and a few other zones had been placed on bad server clusters to make room for the velious beta zones being properly tested. I also never desynced in Fear during trains prior to the shitfest Sunday, and now I do with regularity...so something has happened recently to the red99 server files.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

This wasn't a small selection of people desyncing, our entire raid desynced upon zoning in and running to the corner by the right moat. I can guarantee you that some of these nerds live on the east coast with good internet (sub 20 ping) and have monster computers to boot.

We weren't zone hopping, so the issue isn't going to be fixed by making the argument that we all need to be in the same zone and stay in the same zone. They prepared several hours in advance with a very large force with their casters and rezzers being g-fluxxed onto the super block (so taking the zone prior with our 20-30 people also wasn't feasible).

There isn't a way for the 2 groups to co-exist in that zone prior to the mob being about to spawn. And there's no way for me to build a computer that will drop my ping below the 115-130 ms that I'm always in in the Pacific Northwest. So this in essence is a server hardware issue, especially since I've been in several 70v70s in the past with absolutely no lag or desyncing whatsoever.

I've heard that people spoke with rogean and karnors and a few other zones had been placed on bad server clusters to make room for the velious beta zones being properly tested. I also never desynced in Fear during trains prior to the shitfest Sunday, and now I do with regularity...so something has happened recently to the red99 server files.

I don't have any information other than what I've presented, and I don't have anything to do with the server hardware. I can tell you what I see from my pov, but I can do as much about it as you.

Now to the LNS removal, what I was able to learn was that it has been done before. It led to corpse camping, bind rushing, and general wars of attrition. A 20 v 40 in a battle for Vox ended with the 20 winning. The 40 batphoned and continued to rush for 4+ hours, ending with the 20 that actually won to leave in frustration. Victory through skill is preferred to victory through attrition, and the removal of LNS favours the latter.

If your issue with LNS is "I don't like it" instead of "these are the detriments it's causing to the server", then there isn't a lot more for me to look at. Anyone that claims that the detriment is "becoming blue" will be shot. It's Everquest with PvP, not PvP with Everquest.

[Colgate]

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

I don't have any information other than what I've presented, and I don't have anything to do with the server hardware. I can tell you what I see from my pov, but I can do as much about it as you.

Now to the LNS removal, what I was able to learn was that it has been done before. It led to corpse camping, bind rushing, and general wars of attrition. A 20 v 40 in a battle for Vox ended with the 20 winning. The 40 batphoned and continued to rush for 4+ hours, ending with the 20 that actually won to leave in frustration. Victory through skill is preferred to victory through attrition, and the removal of LNS favours the latter.

If your issue with LNS is "I don't like it" instead of "these are the detriments it's causing to the server", then there isn't a lot more for me to look at. Anyone that claims that the detriment is "becoming blue" will be shot. It's Everquest with PvP, not PvP with Everquest.

the current iteration of the play nice policy in no way stops a guild/force from bind rushing and/or winning a battle through attrition

all it does it take the risk factor out of being the aggressor in PvP

[Guide.Chroma]

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

the current iteration of the play nice policy in no way stops a guild/force from bind rushing and/or winning a battle through attrition

all it does it take the risk factor out of being the aggressor in PvP

The 20 in the example above would have been able to LNS and go on their merry way, instead of sit being camped. Bind rushing, etc is indeed not prevented. That could be something worth looking at, though my wager would be that it would have to start from the players.

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.

[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.

[Rednaros]

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

Conjecturing with Sirken over it is the best source I have. He's seen 300 in a zone operate fine while other people with weaker comps/internet have dropped like flies. That's why I would want to see a large scale fight without zoning before ruling that out.



That's an interesting idea...though logistically a little tricky. Under LNS right now, the reward for the winner is to continue on in the zone without harassment (a la the lockout). Rez timers are something that should be noted in the corpse lockout proposal. Though if your goal is to prevent guilds from sniping other targets after a fight, why wouldn't they just avoid the fight and go snipe?

I think that the LNS rules at the raid level should just ensure that your raid is uncontested in that area after. If you want to contest other mobs with a fight, then you need to be there to fight when a rival goes for it. Although the idea may seem silly that the fallen force can just loot and go on their merry way, I don't see how the current system is hurting anyone but the monopoly.

the desync had little to do computer size it wasn't FPS lag it was MS/ping lag which falls on the server