First Aggro + 15

[Phallax]

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

The only way to stop really stop the camping of these mobs is for all involved parties to AGREE to stop camping them.

Camping a tracker is one thing, but having to have 1/2 of your raid force camped in the raid zone is a little ridiculous.

Then again the only way all parties would agree to stop camping is if the alternative is better for them than camping was. Personally I think this system could work and would be much better than having so many people AFK camping all the time. Others might disagree...

This, camping will never stop untill all parties agree to stop. All these rules posts popping up are just variations of different rules, nothing is really adressing the problem at hand, which is...camping.

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. And even some of the rotation suggestions promote some sort of camping for the 2ndary guilds.

[Leokaiser]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will.

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed. As things stand, however, the rules actively encourage camping. I'm of the opinion that this is a good compromise.

[Akame]

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

Only the raiders themselves can solve this problem, no rule, aside from rotation, will. .

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Collusion like that only works when certain conditions are met.

1. The parties colluding must have the means to lock out outside competition.

2. None of the colluding parties can believe they could be better off by cheating their partners.

Number 1 is impossible without the rotation or agreement being GM enforced, which is somewhere between "highly unlikely" and "never hapening" given previous dev statements on rotations.

Number 2 is a rare and elusive balance that never seems to last for long. Members of real life cartels are forever stabbing each other in the back and looking for advantages. A little research on OPEC or the Columbian drug trade should satisfy anyone's curiosity on that point. Even if that balance was ever achieved, I wouldn't bet on it lasting long.

Bah, here I go discussing rotations in my own thread again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Bad Dumesh!

[Fahn]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Absolutely right, moreover a strong exclusive rotation will discourage other guilds from becoming raiders. As a leader of an up and coming guild this does not bode well for me.

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Any agreement between guilds should only between the guilds, no GM involved. And it would be up to the character of the players to allow for variations to the rule. Something I hope that could happen.

[Leokaiser]

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

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

[Fahn]

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

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

There are various solutions to these problems, it all depends on how the agreement is crafted. From only certain targets are on the menu. To having an open spot in the rotation to allow PuGs and so on. It all depends on the agreement. And again it would have to be NON-GM enforced, with is nigh impossible I understand.

But with that being said. I like this system for what it is, if the GMs decide to enforce anything, This would be the system. The ideas are refined as far as they are going to get in my opinion.

The only other GM action I could even fathom is if they forced the raiders to come to some sort of an agreement. And I just don't think they can / will for many many reasons.

[astarothel]

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?

I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior.

That being said, here are some potential issues:

1) Raid groups will camp right on top of the target's spawn location, allowing it to aggro whomever it will the moment it spawns. These camping groups will presumably be less AFK than they are currently, but the issue still remains that they are camping. An extension of this will be the chaos that ensues, and the raid target's corresponding aggro spam line (it aggro'd on them, but WE picked it up, etc)

2) Redo the wording on the core rule itself to be more clear.
You have 'begin the fight' combined with an engagement based upon aggro.

I assume you mean "the first guild to aggro the target (with message indicator going off) has 15 minutes to do 5% damage to the target, and will subsequently be afforded one opportunity to kill the target".

3) What happens if the mob has been aggro'd and kited around for 15 minutes, but the 5% damage has not been done? The raid target will not issue a new aggro message if/when an other raid group (or groups) attempt to engage it.

4) Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab.

Blaming an entire group for one person's actions is not amazing either. Evidence: Abacab.

"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED DA -- WHAT AN IB LAPDOG"
"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED IB -- DA's CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE"

The second any member, or any group gets a ban they (or their guild) will immediately call foul, questioning the GM decision alleging GM favouritism, or the GM was wrong (fallibility usually asserted through claims of "ignorance or incomplete details regarding the situation").

Any ruleset will have elements of this problem. The system as proposed is frontloaded with the need for GM management and there is nothing in place once GMs have stopped babysitting to stop douchebaggery from commencing again starting a whole new cycle. This is why I believe FFA/first to engage is inherently no better for GM time and involvement than any ruleset that is or will be instituted.

5) A smaller spawn variance will only increase the camping for that period of time when the spawn window is open. Whether it is active camping or AFK it is irrelevant, camping will increase during those periods.

[astarothel]

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

I would rather not hold my breath waiting for the raiding guilds of this server to hold hands and live in harmony, especially with the number of 50s and raid capable guilds increasing over time.

If no rule can solve the problem, it is at least feasable to limit the problem until such time (if ever one exisits) that no rule is needed.

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

If no rule can solve the problem, let's just limit the problem (via rules) until such time that no rule is needed? Gonna have to say that's not exactly a bulletproof argument. All that means is that there will need to be compromise, not that "first to engage" is inherently superior to any other system proposed.

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?