First in Force.

[maestrom]

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

Sounds impossible to enforce.

I don't really see how this could be harder to enforce than the current model described by sirken in his most recent chat.

No need for competing fraps or trains or rule lawyering.

[Samoht]

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

I don't really see how this could be harder to enforce than the current model described by sirken in his most recent chat.

Logs vs he-said-she-said.

[maestrom]

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

Logs vs he-said-she-said.

I guess I'm not understanding the situation you're imagining. /who says 60 guildA in the zone. GuildB says "nuh uh they only have 10 people". Should be pretty easy to check who is right...

[Samoht]

You seem to assume that the top-end guilds on this server have some kind of courtesy. They do not. If a guild is deemed to be moving too slow in the eyes of another, they will be leapfrogged.

Also, who is to determine what arbitrary amount of bodies constitutes a "force?" Are you going to set it per encounter? Will the values be adjusted down as the expected gear values move up?

No. Your solution is not better than the existing one.

One thing you have to remember is that this server caters to a specific class of man-children. You have to accommodate the worst in them, not the best. A FTE gives a clear log of who was the first to engage the mob, regardless of the amount of training or general douchebaggery occurring. Asking these people to agree to who was there first in force would turn the emphasis from something automatic like FTE to something that would have to be proven after the fact on every raid target.

You're basically moving the onus from legitimate kills to legitimate force, which still leaves room for young lawyers to skew the interpretation.

This is why they moved to instances on live.

[maestrom]

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

You seem to assume that the top-end guilds on this server have some kind of courtesy. They do not. If a guild is deemed to be moving too slow in the eyes of another, they will be leapfrogged.

Also, who is to determine what arbitrary amount of bodies constitutes a "force?" Are you going to set it per encounter? Will the values be adjusted down as the expected gear values move up?

No. Your solution is not better than the existing one.

One thing you have to remember is that this server caters to a specific class of man-children. You have to accommodate the worst in them, not the best. A FTE gives a clear log of who was the first to engage the mob, regardless of the amount of training or general douchebaggery occurring. Asking these people to agree to who was there first in force would turn the emphasis from something automatic like FTE to something that would have to be proven after the fact on every raid target.

You're basically moving the onus from legitimate kills to legitimate force, which still leaves room for young lawyers to skew the interpretation.

This is why they moved to instances on live.

I make no assumptions about whether a guild is courteous or not.

Under this rule, if you leapfrog, you get spanked.

I discussed in my post an idea for what I think would be a workable guide for "raid force".

I guess "give them everything because they'll break the rules if they don't get what they want" isn't a satisfying solution for me, which lead me to write this up.

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

listen to sirkens last twitch broadcast about the issues FIF brought....

FIF was never the rule here. It has always been FTE (aside from rotations). The reason FTE has evolved into the silliness it is now is 5-6 raid forces would camp on top of spawns and kill him within seconds. This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target.

FIF moves the fixation of a right to kill a mob from the moment is engaged to the moment a raid force arrives in the zone.

[Samoht]

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

Under this rule, if you leapfrog, you get spanked.

But how do you prove a leapfrog? More frapsquest and petitionquest? It's not a change for the better.

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

I guess "give them everything because they'll break the rules if they don't get what they want" isn't a satisfying solution for me, which lead me to write this up.

The only thing you're proposing here is to change the rule that they're breaking. You haven't proposed anything to keep them from breaking it. It certainly won't make things any easier on the staff.

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

FIF was never the rule here. It has always been FTE (aside from rotations). The reason FTE has evolved into the silliness it is now is 5-6 raid forces would camp on top of spawns and kill him within seconds. This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target.

The only thing that has ever helped to alleviate the "silliness" (your words) on this server was the class system with the class R lockouts. Still, class C was allowed to shit all over each other at will on their own days. But they at least chose to raid that way.

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

FIF moves the fixation of a right to kill a mob from the moment is engaged to the moment a raid force arrives in the zone.

You still haven't defined what a capable force is in any satisfactory manner. I asked if you were going to assign values to each target, and you actually dodged the question. Your original suggestion would only allow the number to go up and would never address over-gearing the encounters.

Also, what do you do about zones where multiple forces can raid concurrently (NTOV). Is only one guild allowed in the whole zone? Alternatively, what do you do now about guilds who just fill zones with AFK bodies so that they have the right to mobs when they spawn and nobody else does?

You really need to take this one back to the drawing board. And then throw that drawing board into a chipper. And then burn the remnants. And then douse the ashes with acid. It's that bad of an idea.

Like I said before, the best solution they could come up with on live was instancing raid content. The only actual other good solution that has ever been proposed was raid tokens, but that still leaves you a lot of room for sniping and interference from trains and general douchebaggery.

[maestrom]

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

But how do you prove a leapfrog? More frapsquest and petitionquest? It's not a change for the better.



The only thing you're proposing here is to change the rule that they're breaking. You haven't proposed anything to keep them from breaking it. It certainly won't make things any easier on the staff.



The only thing that has ever helped to alleviate the "silliness" (your words) on this server was the class system with the class R lockouts. Still, class C was allowed to shit all over each other at will on their own days. But they at least chose to raid that way.



You still haven't defined what a capable force is in any satisfactory manner. I asked if you were going to assign values to each target, and you actually dodged the question. Your original suggestion would only allow the number to go up and would never address over-gearing the encounters.

Also, what do you do about zones where multiple forces can raid concurrently (NTOV). Is only one guild allowed in the whole zone? Alternatively, what do you do now about guilds who just fill zones with AFK bodies so that they have the right to mobs when they spawn and nobody else does?

You really need to take this one back to the drawing board. And then throw that drawing board into a chipper. And then burn the remnants. And then douse the ashes with acid. It's that bad of an idea.

Like I said before, the best solution they could come up with on live was instancing raid content. The only actual other good solution that has ever been proposed was raid tokens, but that still leaves you a lot of room for sniping and interference from trains and general douchebaggery.

I actually really like a rotation. And I was a HUGE advocate for instancing on the TLP. Not sure I think instancing is right for this server (classic and all), but I would absolutely play on a server of P99 quality with instancing.

Proving someone has broken the rule would be pretty easy. Guild A claims Target A. Guild B kills Target A. Guild B has broken the rule. The proof would come when Guild A is in the zone, does a /who, sees that they're the only ones there, and claims the target. When guild B rolls in, guild A will tell guild B that they have claimed the target and they take screen shots.

The only thing going to keep a guild from breaking a rule is staff enforcement. Not sure what else there is to be said here. Of course staff would have to adopt and agree to enforce this rule.

This is where your post starts to get good. My suggestion was for a simple average of the last 5 or so successful kills in order to claim a target. You point out, correctly, that if you roll this over every time, this will lead to an increasing number of people required to claim a target. Awesome! This is what I'm looking for. 14 seems a bit low. 50 seems a bit high. 24? I don't really know what this number should be. Should it be different for each target? I don't really know. What do you guys think?

As far as where other guilds are allowed to be. I don't think there's any reason to say that claiming a target means no other guild can be in the zone. If guilds want to sock a zone and claim a specific target, that's fine. Let them. But If rampage is socking NToV and BDA rolls in, BDA would be able to force Rampage to pick which target they're claiming, and BDA could then pick its own from the remaining targets in window. And then Taken could come in and claim another. And forsaken could claim another. And there'd be no reason for any of these guilds to train each other, because they would be under no pressure to kill the second their target spawns. They would kill the couple of trash between them and the target and then pull the target at their leisure.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

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

...This wouldn't happen with FIF because only the guild with the claim would have a right to kill the target....

This would just turn into a diff version of FTE. As it stands FTE involves mobilizing and, as soon as you can get and keep a FTE, you launch the attack.

FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?

5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock

6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

Way too many problems. Rules upon rules upon rules.

But I do think Velious dragons need to be leashed.

[maestrom]

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

This would just turn into a diff version of FTE. As it stands FTE involves mobilizing and, as soon as you can get and keep a FTE, you launch the attack.

FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

I thought about this--tieing the definition of raid force to specific targets. It might be best to handle it by groups. Kunark and lower targets need 24. Velious-era mobs take something more. 48?

2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

There would be no "window" for when you can no longer bring people into a raid. The intent of this rule isn't to force guilds to take down targets with fewer people. The intent of the rule is to allow guilds to lock in ONE target at a time as theirs so they don't have to worry about trainfests and FTE sniping.

3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

I thought about this, but since people can't two-box I don't see a reason why we need to worry about who is actually sitting there. If the guild has claimed 1 target, then they can't claim another target. They can go FTE unclaimed targets or farm other loot/group content. But I imagine the players who get left socking would get grumpy and either get their guild to give up the sock or cycle people around. No reason to say that it has to stay this 24 people.

4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?

This has given me some trouble. It could either be handled with a "-5" rule. Or a timer. Once claimed, you have an allowance of 5 raiders. If you lose 5 raiders (such as going from 24-5= 19 raiders) then you lose the claim. Another solution is as follows. Guild A claims target. Guild B zones in. Guild A loses 5 people and drops below the raid force threshold. Guild B can inform Guild A that their timer has started and they have X minutes to get back up to 24 or they lose their claim.

I am sympathetic to a rule that says if your raid has some lag and drops below "raid force" that you lose your claim automatically, but that might be easiest to enforce. I don't expect it will happen that often though.

5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock

The rule does not discuss windows. I imagine claims won't go in on targets that aren't in window. But if a guild really really wants to claim Tormax even though he won't be in window for 3 more days, then i supposed they're free to sock Tormax all week. I imagine this won't happen, because...

6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

No. The rule says you get ONE claim per guild/alliance at a time. If guild A plants its raid force at and claims Tormax, it cannot put another raid force at Sontalak and claim him. One claim per guild/alliance.

[Expediency]

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

FiF has several serious problems:

1) defining what a force is, which would be very mob dependent and each guild would naturally lowball what they consider an adequate force for them.

2) can a force add to itself as more people log on? If not, yeah, that's gonna be popular. Who closes the window for "ok, this is your force, no more may join?"

3) would replacements be allowed as the guild waits? How would that work? Can you start out your force with a dozen rangers then gradually try to get other classes in?

4) if the force # drops below the required number, due to a ld, do they lose the right?

5) socking the camp from when it's spawn window opens, which means that the "FTE" moment means who has a force at zone at the moment spawn window opens, which means guilds would actually sock to be able to sock

6) Can a guild camp multiple spawn windows as long as they have a sufficient force at each?

Way too many problems. Rules upon rules upon rules.

But I do think Velious dragons need to be leashed.

These seem like easy questions.

1. They only get to declare one force. Any size. Small minimum, say 10
2. Absolutely, players can come and go. Just requires the minimum to be present, openly claiming intent to clear to a target and kill it.
3. The idea of "force" is not specific to classes. You have the right to kill a mob with your force unimpeded, and you can have as many or as few of whatever you want. And they can be anywhere in the zone waiting.
4. There would need to be a cutoff, such as two hours after spawn before it becomes fair game. If you have the minimum and someone goes LD that is their problem. Small issues like that are where lawyerquesting gets a foothold and doesnt let go. IF someone claims a camp, has only 10 people in their guild, and one of them goes LD just give them a few minutes to get the person back online.

5. Legit question, I would say if two guilds want to contest the same thing, should be determined by officers /randoming out of 1000 in a public area before the mob spawns or any force has been set up, with no guild being able to claim FiF on the same target multiple times in a row.
6. Absolutely not, at least not in multiple zones. You get one force, no matter the size. Claim it wisely.