My proposal for Raiding guilds and GMs of P1999

[snifs]

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

Putting numbers on it isn't necessary. You should go with what you think you can succeed with. If you wipe, sucks to be you -- there's plenty of other raid groups probably waiting.

True, but it's been stated that GM's don't want FFA. Putting a higher number on the claim, would reduce overall camping. No guild on this server is going to be able to keep 30 members in sol B for naggy and 30 in Fear for draco, atleast not long enough for spawns.

It would push guilds into accepting a bit more of an FFA tactic over camping, and overtime maybe we could compeltely drop it and go FFA or some form of FFA.

But as of now, there is no way FFA is going to stick on this server.

[astarothel]

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

No guild on this server is going to be able to keep 30 members in sol B for naggy and 30 in Fear for draco, atleast not long enough for spawns.

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. I want fewer people camping total, not simply a greater concentration in one place.

[snifs]

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

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. I want fewer people camping total, not simply a greater concentration in one place.

What I'm saying is, guilds just won't do it...I can tell you DA is not going to sit 30 people in one zone, for 2 days straight, just to get 1 kill. Especially with a spawn variance.

^ granted, maybe if all bosses are down, and CT is last to spawn...we could see camping for that. But I think it's at least a step closer to not camping.

I'm thinking it should force guilds into simply mobilizing members when stuff spawns.

[astarothel]

Then it won't be OMG THEY ONLY HAVE 14, it will be OMG THEY HAVE x-1, where x is the required number to claim it.

You'll have mass rushes to a zone, and inevitably there will be people that don't get the claim that will consider asshattery, provided a GM doesn't disperse them (which I think we all want to avoid).

[nilbog]

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

True, but it's been stated that GM's don't want FFA.

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.

[Olorin]

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

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type to ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.

Almost everyone is saying they dont want to camp -- solution is relatively simple, develop some anti-camping rules. Just off the top of my head, we could allow each guild to have a tracker or two in the zone -- beyond that, all members of a guild that are in a zone when a target pops are not eligible to be part of the "first in force count".

I am sure that the leaders of these guilds could polish this some (this is just off the top of my head) or even come up with a completely different idea that accomplishes the same thing.

If we don't want to camp, lets take away the advantage that camping gives you.

[G13]

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

Almost everyone is saying they dont want to quit -- solution is relatively simple, develop some anti-camping rules. Just off the top of my head, we could allow each guild to have a tracker or two in the zone -- beyond that, all members of a guild that are in a zone when a target pops are not eligible to be part of the "first in force count".

I am sure that the leaders of these guilds could polish this some (this is just off the top of my head) or even come up with a completely different idea that accomplishes the same thing.

If we don't want to camp, lets take away the advantage that camping gives you.

Like someone above stated

Nothing is stopping people from camping out in the zones instead.

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like someone above stated

Nothing is stopping people from camping out in the zones instead.

Camping out in the zone does not really give a decisive advantage with a +- 48 hour variance. It takes little enough time to gather at a portal and get ports. Camping in a zone (other than say sol b) increases your mobilization time for targets other than naggy.

If thats the strategy that a guild wants to employ, let them. Everyone can do this and its a helluva lot better than camping the zone and using up the badwidth doing nothing.

[G13]

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

Camping out in the zone does not really give a decisive advantage with a +- 48 hour variance. It takes little enough time to gather at a portal and get ports. Camping in a zone (other than say sol b) increases your mobilization time for targets other than naggy.

If thats the strategy that a guild wants to employ, let them. Everyone can do this and its a helluva lot better than camping the zone and using up the badwidth doing nothing.

You can just camp out in safe spots in each zone

There is no need to "gather". Anyone who claims "mobilization" is what we need either has an agenda or doesn't understand how the current raid zones are setup.

Let me give you an example. Camping in hate will save you money and port time. So what, is the guild that camps in WC at the wizard spire somehow better at killing the boss mob or something?

Another example - Perma. Camp out at the 2 door room. So what, is the guild that binds there instead or uses potion of the frost better at killing Vox now?

Fear - There are safe spots to camp out which are much more efficient than breaking in. So porting to Fearrot and doing a quick WW break makes you better at killing draco or CT or something?

You get the point. There needs to be a real solution so every guild can enjoy the content. Nobody talks about how there are other guilds capable of killing these mobs that don't get the chance because they don't want to poopsock. Using a druid to track and waking everyone else up at 3AM is still poopsocking. So instead of AFK your character is camped out. It's the same damn thing. People are trying to twist and pretezel semantics here to try and pin the blame on each other and it's childish. We need to look at the situation like adults and find a happy medium.

[Skope]

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

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.

I think Nilbog and I are on the same page, but with a little deviation. I do think that having a rotation can, and most certainly will, decrease GM intervention drastically. Though I think with all the hate-spewing and some of the attitudes at high end raiding, a player-made and enforced rotation would see petty petitions and disputes at a higher rate than a GM enforced and GM/Player constructed agreement to a rotation, particularly when guild A feels it isn't being treated fairly by guild B. Guild A decides not to abide by player-made rules. Then neither does guild B, and you're essentially back to FFA and all the chaos that it may bring. A GM stamp of approval backed by a shiny hammer would prevent that.

12 hour variance allows for a 1 hour engagement on a mob (inny/CT/dragons), -- and perhaps the same on draco/maestro -- allows for mobilization techniques, lesser levels of camping, and active clearing.