Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[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

[daasgoot_2.0]

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

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

good example of this is ferrott/fear

let someone die in ferrott, call force LNS.. everyone zones into or plugs into fear and waits for the opposing force to engage mob.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

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

What's your thoughts on only allowing a guild to have 1 active LNS. Essentially if they are LNS locked from an engagement, they can't LNS their force again until it expires.

This way they atleast have to choose battles more carefully, but aren't being destroyed for attempting to contest (something that I would think should be encouraged).

I'd also like to emphasise this quote from the LNS policy: "This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone". This can mean a lockout lasts much longer than an hour.

[Buhbuh]

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

What's your thoughts on only allowing a guild to have 1 active LNS. Essentially if they are LNS locked from an engagement, they can't LNS their force again until it expires.

This way they atleast have to choose battles more carefully, but aren't being destroyed for attempting to contest (something that I would think should be encouraged).

I'd also like to emphasise this quote from the LNS policy: "This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone". This can mean a lockout lasts much longer than an hour.

That would be the point of a lockout, though. You'd really have to know when to pick your battles, and when you do pick a battle, you have to stick it out. Otherwise you lose 2 hours, which, for Velious, won't be a crippling ordeal, but will still hurt.

I can't remember the last time an opposing guild has called Force LNS twice in one day. So that would rarely ever apply, especially because when the out-classed force loses once on a repop day, they just avoid PvP engagements for the rest of the day.

The point is not to have five minute mass PvP fights where people can plug and call Force LNS with 1 or 2 deaths. It's to force people to commit and fight. If there's a lockout period for LNS, neither side will want to quit. 2 hours of time are on the line for a loss. These are the types of fights that are the most fun here, not the ones with chickenshit Force LNS calls 5 minutes into a fight.

[Gardur]

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

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

1) I would argue that the current state of the server necessitates this be the case. If empire could just crush your whole force to a man everytme you contest then raid mob monopolization would only get worse.

2) I'm all for victor calling exclusion zones. I remember killing az outside fear portal and them just lnsing inside. That's why the ogre wall was built.

[Colgate]

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

1) I would argue that the current state of the server necessitates this be the case. If empire could just crush your whole force to a man everytme you contest then raid mob monopolization would only get worse.

2) I'm all for victor calling exclusion zones. I remember killing az outside fear portal and them just lnsing inside. That's why the ogre wall was built.

you don't see an issue with the current system of getting caught in a bad fight, raising your hands while saying "FORCE LNS! DON'T TOUCH ME OR GET BANNED!" while you port out with impunity?

it's comically stupid; you should pay actual consequences for losing a fight in the raid scene