|
|
|
|
#1
06-17-2010, 09:14 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Having a hard server kick for AFKing is game changing for people other than raiders. If the server was running on a cable modem in someone's cellar and you want to keep the amount of data transfer down by keeping the population low, then fine. This server has a fairly pro setup and there is no reason to boot people off the server. If, perhaps, Rogean deems it reasonable to make it so as the server population grows, then so be it. This, however, is a "feature" that would have to be decided not by the players but by the GM staff. As the ruleset stands there is nothing against AFK camping. If they implemented this, their own server rules would be moot. Something to note: a roll call clause was put into effect in the player made rulset to allow a guild to take rights from another guild if they were AFK to the point that they could not meet the minimum requirements to claim a raid force when a mob spawns. It has been used multiple times with little to no success. That tells me that there are enough people active that adding this rule will not alter the gamescape much. 2. Dumesh's idea still focuses on FFA and is only really applicable, as he said, to outside boss encounters. There are no outside boss encounters right now that are appropriate for this sort of thing unless you have very particular stipulations for CT. For future encounters it may be useful but you're relying on everyone to have the same timer, and to respect it. Not to mention the fact that by attempting to steal agro, you're pretty much going against server rules of attempting to KS engaged mobs. Find me a situation where you're not going to have an opposing raid force attempting to agro the mob off of the original kiter. If, on the flipside, you are saying that once agro a guild would have 15 minutes to get ready and engage while the kiter(s) kite, we might be on to something. I will say that for all of the outside dragons in Kunark and Velious, this is a pretty good idea. A guild can claim the spawn by actually having it agroed. If their guild fails to mobilize and engage the target within a set time period, they would lose their claim. No other guild will be able to interact with the dragon unless the kiters from the first guild die. I would expect some level of whining and foul play, though. Damaging a mob to make it summon would be the biggest offense, here. In the event of that, I hope the guild with claim would be ready to engage very quickly, but it defeats the level of respect that would need to be present for this rule to work. If we can calm down the current raiding environment, I would consider this one hell of a pro idea for later expansions and hope that it could discussed in the next guild meeting! 3. Increasing the spawn variance would be interesting but you're severely limiting the extent to which a raiding guild with the "kill the boss" mentality will even bother to log in. Whether or not this type of guild truly exists isn't apparent as of right now as the raiding climate is still in a state of flux. A flat timer before spawn variance even starts only pushes the window further out. Again, the same issue would exist. Since that timer would be known (or could be deduced) it only serves to increase the time between kills. If enough guilds are hot and bothered by the idea of a god or dragon kill, only seeing 2-3 a month is going to piss off a lot of people. On the flipside, this does make dragon and god loot more rare. I'd expect the market for CoFs and RBGs to maintain a highly inflated price for quite some time if either of these ideas were added. Not to say that it's bad but it would be a reasonable expectation. This would not affect overall "mudflation" too much but we'd still see sore spots in the market. I would go so far as to extend this to the idea that all drops should be more rare, whether through spawn rates or drop rate. It would give the game a more epic feeling, but to what extent is that a bad thing? And it's definitely not classic. 4. I don't even know what this would accomplish. As it stands the only bans that took effect were those when guilds first started bickering, and members of guilds that couldn't stop backtalking to GMs. As far as the events go that have been posted on the forums, any bans that occured were not about making stories up but basically disrespecting the staff. There has been suspicion of some activities between guilds but no hard evidence is available either way and because of that, there is very little to gain from it. If anything I'd see this more as an attempt to foster more intervention from GMs by creating a GM/Guide rule that says, "just ban us if we are terrible people" and not so much a deterrent to any particular actions. Enough things are possible in this game that it takes way too much proof to prove. This is a video game, not a courthouse. | ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#2
06-17-2010, 12:30 PM
|
||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
PS: Seriously who are you again? | |||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
#3
06-17-2010, 01:07 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
More famous than Jesus and better dressed than Santa Claus; wouldn't be seen dead on a cross and have never been caught up a chimney. So I deserve your money more | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
06-17-2010, 01:19 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Speaking of which who are you? I'm kidding... the only thing I'd like to add is, if we're all unhappy about the camping situation (an assumption i know), we should put as many deterrents as possible. Go with the full measure of things instead of doing it in a half ass fashion. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#5
06-17-2010, 01:20 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#6
06-17-2010, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
I cannot verify or deny your claims of truth, but I am glad you understand my reference. The important thing to note is that from an outsiders point of view, it doesn't look to be an impartial, accurate timeline. Perhaps it is, but I know for a fact one of your points is wrong. DA was formed to remove itself from Salty's leadership. As of right now, I'm under the perception we are adjusting to the fact that a) FB rejected the original raid rules and b) DA never had a say in them.
On to your counterpoints: Upon further clarification I do see what you are saying, but there are issues with where these rules may belong. 1) Game changing is game changing. I don't care who it affects or to what extent it affects them unless it's the owner of the server/staff, because you are altering the code of the game with the intention to affect, even as you say, part of the population of the server. As I said, I'm mainly pointing out the fact that this is not a serverwide population decision until the GMs decide to make it one. To clarify: this doesn't belong in a ruleset for raids. It is a separate suggestion that should be brought up with the GMs with listed arguments as to why it should be put in place. With that said, multiple people have said there are ways around it so I'm not sure how much it actually provides in terms of a solid rule that is worth adding for the guilds to operate with civility. 2) I see this as a great possibility but it does not work in some situations. No raid force will keep their distance once the main target is in sight, because they want to be the ones to leapfrog and obtain agro first. That's why I am arguing that outdoor zone encounters that you see in Kunark and Velious makes this a valid idea but not for the encounters that exist right now. CT is a special case, Naggy and Vox are inside with limited space to agro/maintain agro and not pull on to your raid or another raid. Most of the other encounters also fall under this same category. I don't know how it worked before when things were still in a state of FFA, but I can imagine it wasn't pretty. Feel free to enlighten me, but I truly do not see how two, three, or four opposing raids are going to look at the current raid targets and consider that reasonable. 3) I kinda like the idea that the encounters would be slightly more rare, so I'm not disagreeing. I'm fairly certain that all of the guilds are willing to continue to log in but I'm simply pointing out the fact that if the majority of interest of any particular guild is simply for boss encounters, then very little else will go on and interest will be lost. That's a hypothetical that I cannot prove or disprove but I invite the probability of it to be discussed as an issue of server population. I assume that as a spokesman for IB you have discussed this with your new recruits as a possibility that less raids might be on the table and do indeed have their assurance on your claim. 4) We bother with rules because we should be able to follow them with civility. We bother with rules because it serves as a check to power and the lack thereof. I don't see the point of this rule only because it would probably be easier for the GM to look at the petition, jump to the zone, despawn the mob, and leave. No mediation, no squabble over whose evidence is more correct because it would merit nothing. Why, if they have this power, would they care to hear your case and my case about a situation? I unfortunately have not been present for the reasons that GMs have been summoned in the past but I read all the drama about it. I can claim suspicion about a lot of things, and I can claim admission of fault on others. The idea that the GMs favor any group gets old. We think you are favored, you think we are favored. We could run a statistical study on the number of times the GMs reluctantly log in and mediate issues between forces, and who they favor, or we could just stop this argument. As for who I am: I am Aadill Pickle, class leader Ranger of Dark Ascension. I played a ranger because I literally love the idea of taking DTs and I like to always hear the sound of a barking dog every two seconds when I attack something. I honestly have no idea who you are other than from your two posts on this forum. I am not here to fight for my guild's wishes to beat you out on the majority of every cycle of mobs, nor am I here to express my guild's discontent about not getting the majority of every cycle of mobs. I am not here to shoot down every idea, only to give input and receive input back in hopes that we can expound upon those ideas that have merit and actually work something out that will result in LESS animosity among players. Competition is good and that is what makes this game great, but I do hope you're not rocking the boat just to rock the boat. We're all on it. I have asked to attend the next meeting to further explore the ideas we've come up with and have not received an okay on this. With that in mind I am maintaining a forum presence to at least further some ideas here. Also: Yes. No Half-assling it. | ||
|
Last edited by Aadill; 06-17-2010 at 01:34 PM..
Reason: I am bad at not wanting to add things to my post.
|
|
||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
