First Aggro + 15

[Fahn]

First off just want to say that I was in no way advocating either solution in my previous post. Was just saying.

In essence the only way to eliminate camping is a rotation agreement of sorts.

And again before I continue want to say I am not advocating any solution, just pointing out things I see.

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

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

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

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

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

[Fahn]

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

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!
Any rotation would have to be agreed upon by ALL raiding guilds. A feat likely impossible as you have said. That is the only way to assure that everyone gets something out of it.

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

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

A guild, providing it is one and not several, who do not comply with the rotation would simply be removed from it and the other guilds would have to come together to assure they rarely if ever get another raid target again. Until such case as they agree to follow the agreement. This again would require all raiding guilds to be in agreement and the GMs allowing the players to police themselves. And again stating that this is likely impossible. I can only see it happening if the GMs deem it not completely exclusive as to keep up and coming guilds out.

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

Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!... Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

Cool, thanks for going back and forth with me a bit. I think productive arguments should usually be confrontational, just without malice or condescension. Thank you for your contributions. I agree, we aren't far off in viewpoint.

[Bumamgar]

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

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

Exactly. My guild on Errollisi Marr (Cries of Insurrection) ended the Venril Sathir/Trakanon rotation by simply ignoring it. The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time. The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.

Any non-GM enforced rotation on this server would suffer the same fate, and likely not even last a full cycle.

[astarothel]

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

What would be different about a player enforced SK rotation that would prevent the same behavior from happening?

I concede the point, rotations are going to be talked about. I suppose there is no harm having the discussion here.

[astarothel]

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

Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.

Frontloaded: the work they will need to do at the onset is significantly more than they should have to do throughout the rest of the duration.

Training and KSing have always been serious offenses under the server rules.

We cannot expect the GMs to be any more vigilant now than they have been in the past over these issues simply because a new ruleset for raiding is instituted that places emphasis upon more severe punishment. The most we could hope for really is that they would levy harsher penalties upon the guilty.

Is the frontloaded weight of the system going to pay off? Do the GMs have the time? That is the concern a number of people have.

==

Here's why Bumamgar's situation of a straight rotation is not necessarily best applied toward a dynamic rotation.

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

The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time.

6 guilds is a lot in a straight rotation, but in a dynamic rotation like SK where you are responsible for tracking your targets, not so much.

Vellious is a long ways away and a straight rotation with so many targets is messy. Eww.

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

The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

In a dynamic rotation like SK, the higher end guilds will be prioritizing their kill targets. The reason they would be passing is for a shot at a better target down the line. When a raid target spawns in a dynamic rotation like SK someone will almost always be there to take it, so there is no risk of it not being killed or going to waste.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Originally Posted by Bumamgar

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.

This is the part of what Bum said that I was talking about. While the guilds involved in a SK rotation would be more vigilant for sure, there is no stopping a guild from outside the rotation from crashing the party and taking (or trying to take) mobs, and without GM enforcement of the SK rotation, there is nothing to prevent a guild from staying out of the SK agreement (or a motivated PUG who didn't like the idea of the rotation).