Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

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.

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

[Colgate]

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

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

[dontbanpls]

Allowing any player, or group of players dictate what the PNP would be is mind boggling.

As if people don't already complain enough about favoritism around here.