Raid rules suggestion

[Uaellaen]

If the variance was removed, and raid encounters were reset (let's say Vox, Naggy, CT, Inny all pop at 8 CST on a Friday)

You are assuming the whole world lives in your timezone?

Varianz is for an even contest between different countries ... they can pop during chinese / european / australian / american / mexican whatever prime time, randomly ... so basicly everyone one has a chance to get a spawn.

With four raid targets up at the same time guilds can be spaced out evenly without any friction in zones over who has claim on what mob

right, we currently have ~6? raid cappable guilds ... are 2 of them on vacation in your example?

[Heebee]

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

You are assuming the whole world lives in your timezone? Varianz is for an even contest between different countries ... they can pop during chinese / european / australian / american / mexican whatever prime time, randomly ... so basicly everyone one has a chance to get a spawn.

Bingo!

[YendorLootmonkey]

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.

Having said that, all it would take is the GMs to enforce the raid rules consistently and fairly with the threat of bans/guild disbanding/whatever heavy-handed approach they want to take to make sure that the consequences of training/leapfrogging/whatever is SO GREAT that the guilds are fighting to make sure each other gets their fair shot before their own guild makes their attempt out of pure fear of being dealt with by the GMs for not "playing nice".

I don't care how the actual mechanics of this happen, but in my mind it would be a version of:

a) Guild A demonstrates ability/intent to raid target X first and claims one attempt on the target. Screenshot this with a timestamp in case the proof is required later to settle disputes and determine who needs banning/guild disbanding.

b) Contesting guilds (B, C, D,...) stay the hell out of the way until that attempt is complete. If a guild cannot demonstrate the ability to do that, they should be guild disbanded. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Also, three random players on each guildmembers' friends list should be banned.

c) Raid leader from Guild A concedes defeat and contesting guilds attempt the raid target *once* in the order in which they demonstrated ability/intent. If a guild cannot demonstrate the ability to concede defeat when they have wiped to the point where they can no longer engage the raid target, they should be guild disbanded. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Plus all of their rare items/weapons/armor should be removed from all their toons, and their characters should all be turned into assling druids.

All guilds present and attempting to demonstrate ability/intent should designate one raid leader via /shout, and only those raid leaders should be communicating. If they can't work it out between themselves, ban all of the raid leaders. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Plus go to their houses in real life and leave bags of flaming poo on their doorsteps.

Trust me, everyone will be tripping all over themselves to cooperate. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Remember, rule with an IRON FIST!!

[Kraal]

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

.

Having said that, all it would take is the GMs to enforce the raid rules consistently and fairly with the threat of bans/guild disbanding/whatever heavy-handed approach they want to take to make sure that the consequences of training/leapfrogging/whatever is SO GREAT that the guilds are fighting to make sure each other gets their fair shot before their own guild makes their attempt out of pure fear of being dealt with by the GMs for not "playing nice".

You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?

Iron fist ruling isn't fair ruling, there is no tribunal of players who get to decide what happens we don't take a democratic vote so it is in no way legit or honest. GM's can waiver on a case to case basis and depending on their mood be draconic or be downright showing favoritism, we can't keep this in check so it should NOT be by all means "iron fisted"

[yaaaflow]

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

You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?

If you don't see any differences between those two situations then you are dumber than your thread makes you seem.

[Kraal]

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

If you don't see any differences between those two situations then you are dumber than your thread makes you seem.

I've used larger words in this thread than you have in your entire life [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no difference in these situations, the end sum is the same. You can twist whatever logic you want into the grey area to make it seem like it's totally different but at the end of that night what it came down to was the current set of rules being un-respected and shifted to benefit one party over another.

If I were a GM I would've given out chestplates of sad exploitation and dropped both raid forces in the middle of OOT, neither party deserved loot, and neither party deserved a re-pop because no one there showed any sign of compromise or mutuality.

As for you and your guild:

In my honest opinion quit trying to be a Afterlife/FoH/LoS clone guild it doesn't suit you well because you don't have the balls to pull of some of the things they did without crying petition, you want FFA so you can be ultra-dominant but the moment you get trained to oblivion, have mobs bugged, or in the future having people drop glowing black swords/velium swiftblades on raid targets you're going to be suckling a GM's teet for vindication.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?

Iron fist ruling isn't fair ruling, there is no tribunal of players who get to decide what happens we don't take a democratic vote so it is in no way legit or honest. GM's can waiver on a case to case basis and depending on their mood be draconic or be downright showing favoritism, we can't keep this in check so it should NOT be by all means "iron fisted"

If you couldn't tell my post was tongue-in-cheek with threats of leaving flaming bags of dog poo on people's real life doorsteps, you might be functionally retarded. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Come on, now.

However, there's something to be said for deterrence...

[Shamaeso]

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

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.

How can it be shut down if the server has not violated their EULA , They do not charge for service, and sony has our money from purchasing the client side software?

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

How can it be shut down if the server has not violated their EULA , They do not charge for service, and sony has our money from purchasing the client side software?

From http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/83055/page/4

"Trademark rights can come from a number of game elements. Titles are the most obvious, but trademark rights can arise from well-known characters (e.g., MASTER CHIEF), settings (SAN ANDREAS), and even game items (ASHBRINGER). If the emulator continues to use EQ terminology, they may run into trademark problems." Even though the emulator does not compete with the original EQ game, Monahan notes that Sony could assert its trademark rights in the well-known EQ franchise including EQ2 and other EQ merchandise. "Even without direct sales of emulator accounts, the project faces brand problems, because trademarks protect against consumer confusion as to sponsorship and affiliation. It is not hard to expect consumers to believe that the emulated EQ game does not have the sponsorship or approval of Sony."

[mitic]

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

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.

this "sony could shut down emu" argument is flawed and should be taken out as argument per se in any discussion about any server-issues.

emu was here for years and will stay for the years to come. this is, for now, a fact. we are playing now and not in the future.