I hate this perma-camping shit

[Rogean]

FFA Would mean 2-3 guilds literally sitting on the spawn of a mob.

Then what? The mob spawns, probably aggroes someone automatically right away, and then all 3 guilds go into a kill steal fest for the win? And if/when we do get logs of who actually was on aggro first, we take away the loot, suspend the kill stealing guild, and give it to the guild that was lucky to get first aggro?

How does that make any sense.

[Reiyz]

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

FFA Would mean 2-3 guilds literally sitting on the spawn of a mob.

Then what? The mob spawns, probably aggroes someone automatically right away, and then all 3 guilds go into a kill steal fest for the win? And if/when we do get logs of who actually was on aggro first, we take away the loot, suspend the kill stealing guild, and give it to the guild that was lucky to get first aggro?

How does that make any sense.

Eh, I suppose your right. At the same time I can't really hate on guilds passing camps from guildie to guildie - if I were in their situation I'd do the exact same thing.

But, culling the population of idiots wouldn't be such a bad idea. Ban instead of suspend imo.

[Bumamgar]

It makes sense because it would only happen a few times before guilds got tired of getting suspended and 'rolling the dice' on who was lucky enough to get first agro. They'd stop camping the spawn because they'd know that camping the spawn was as likely to get you suspended as it was to get you the mob. Yeah, it'd take a hard-core smackdown or two before it stuck, but in the end it would result in less camping.

[Taxi]

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

FFA Would mean 2-3 guilds literally sitting on the spawn of a mob.

Then what? The mob spawns, probably aggroes someone automatically right away, and then all 3 guilds go into a kill steal fest for the win? And if/when we do get logs of who actually was on aggro first, we take away the loot, suspend the kill stealing guild, and give it to the guild that was lucky to get first aggro?

How does that make any sense.

I was more talking about regular 20ish+ named mobs then raid mobs, which i dont have experience with. But i can see its the same "claiming" pattern.

At least with FFA it keeps people on their toes on where the numbers will be.
THEN guilds could brag about mobilizing. If a guild wants to put 5 people on hadden cuz they really want that fishbone earring drop, well let players sort it between themselves who wants it the most.

I think it would actually help soloers more than anything, because if some afk "non-boxer" cant claim hadden (dont mean to say they are all boxers, but im pretty sure there is some boxing, so unless youre sitting there next to the guy in RL, you cant really tell for sure), then if you were afk playing your alt or playing another game, watching TV when he popped its too bad, GL next time. It would also leave the spawns some breathing space. If hadden can get taken away from you easy, then not so much people would perma-camp mobs. Then you could have a pleasant surprise in QH with Hadden up and no one camping him.

Im not sure whats the solution, i played on a pvp server so it was pretty cutthroat and people didnt whine for their entitlements like you see here, it would get your corpse camped to no end.

Im not sure FFA is a good idea just for the fact that the whine meter would go to such high levels before the entitleds quit that im not sure the server wouldnt implode under the sheer weight of the whinyness.

My judgement can be wrong of course, i just dislike this claiming stuff alot.

[nicemace]

i dunno about you guys. but last night i just rolled into guk, lord was open, lord was up (no yak), killed him, cleared room, cleared hall, PH spawned, killed him, cleared hall, lord spawns, yak in hand, kill him, clear room, clear hall, lord spawns, yak in hand, kill him, leave guk.

didnt even need to talk to anyone, i just went along, got my 2 yaks then left.

but im bound outside, and i check on all the premium camps every now and then.

magi was also open when i went along.

all this bitching and moaning about guilds locking them out is crap, ive gone along grabbed frenzy like 3 times in the last week, same with magi and lord and king.

and for raid mobs: FFA is bad idea. simple.

[Cyrano]

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

all this bitching and moaning about guilds locking them out is crap, ive gone along grabbed frenzy like 3 times in the last week, same with magi and lord and king.

and for raid mobs: FFA is bad idea. simple.

Why?

[Starklen]

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

FFA Would mean 2-3 guilds literally sitting on the spawn of a mob.

Then what? The mob spawns, probably aggroes someone automatically right away, and then all 3 guilds go into a kill steal fest for the win? And if/when we do get logs of who actually was on aggro first, we take away the loot, suspend the kill stealing guild, and give it to the guild that was lucky to get first aggro?

How does that make any sense.

I think you are discounting the fact that even groups of people that dislike each other are able to function in some sort of 'free' system when facing the right set of incentives and disincentives. I've already observed small amounts of reciprocity under the current regime of rules. For example, I've witnessed both DA and IB zoning out for one another during Vox engagements to try and reduce zone lag for the opposing raid. While your perception of how much people dislike each other around here is probably true, I don't feel like it is the likely case that an FFA system necessarily leads to the anarchy or set of problems you suggest. Even enemies will try to agree to or respect some minimum standard of conduct if nothing more than to maximize their own utilities. You see examples of this out in the world all the time.

[Taxi]

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

While your perception of how much people dislike each other around here is probably true, I don't feel like it is the likely case that an FFA system necessarily leads to the anarchy or set of problems you suggest. Even enemies will try to agree to or respect some minimum standard of conduct if nothing more than to maximize their own utilities. You see examples of this out in the world all the time.

Thats a good point, you still get a reputation with a FFA system. If some people are known to KS all the time etc... say some guild starts out and names itself <WeKSuLOL>. Well that guild would probably need to be stricly self-reliant because they wouldnt get buffed in EC, wouldnt get ports, unless they stay anonymous. If its anything like on live, people have a little shitlist they keep close to themselves when they are playing. FFA would be self-regulating in that way.

[Beldhar Stormstalker]

I used to play on the now-extinct Zebuxoruk server, until around the end of 2004 I think, when I quit (shortly after Gates of Discord came out).

It seems that on different servers, there were different "rules" as for camping and raiding... as far as I can remember, there was no calendar nor anything of the sort on Zeb. And the only true-FFA mob that I knew of was the (in)famous Lodizal. The rest usually were respected by camping rules - whoever was at the spot killing stuff had the rights to the named, which in theory is similar to what we have here right now.

On raid targets though, things were very different than what P99 seems to have. The contested raid mobs were not FFA, but there were "races" between guilds to see who could mobilize faster, buff up and engage. This was true to most of the open-area mobs, like the Kunark dragons, and some "dungeon/city" areas, like Vindi/Statue in Kael, and KT. The first guild to engage the mob had the claim, and should they fail, the other guild standing around had a shot. It was quite amusing to beat your "arch-nemesis" guild on certain things, like Doomshade and Rumblecrush in Luclin. I had some fun back in those days.

Some other mobs were a bit more complicated. For example, Chardok Royals and the Coldain King. The guild that started clearing the way to the nameds had the initial claim. Another guild could follow behind, without interfering on anything, in case the initial guild wiped, but that usually was not the case. If someone was clearing down to Royals, other folks usually let them be and moved on.

And in the case of the then-available planes, if there was a weaker guild farming trash in Hate, or Growth, for armor drops, and suddenly Inno/Tunare popped, it was frequent that stronger guilds would show up to attempt the named, but they'd leave the small guys alone and either assist them with clearing (if necessary) and handing over loot, but only after talking to that guild's leadership, and not leapfrogging/training the shiznit out of them.

It wasn't perfect back then, but it seemed to work... obviously, there was "cockblocking" of higher end mobs, with the top guild on the server having certain targets locked down (Emperor Ssra, for instance, was only killed by a second guild after Planes of Power came out), but the whole cockblocking/drama seems to be part of the EverQuest experience. Heh.

[Rogean]

You guys can't compare rallos zek to this server, because simply there was no play nice policy on rallos zek. It was quite simple, resolve your disputes via PVP. That is not an option here (and no, it never will be).