First Aggro + 15

[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.]

pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system.

Not necessarily always the case, a fair ruleset must simply provide for their inclusion. However this is about First to Engage rather than a rotation, so that is all I will say in regards to that.

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

I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

I don't really see how it is more about mobilization that any other system proposed so far. It offers no solutions to camping as a whole, rather an indirect solution to AFK camping. Any sort of camping is the opposite of mobilization in my eyes.

Any explicit agreement between guilds or groups not to camp people other than trackers will neither last nor hold if it is not directly incorporated into firm ruleset somehow.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

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

certainly true, perhaps I should have let that statement stand. I was just trying to provoke further useful discussion... which apparently I did given the rest of your post.

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

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)

Sitting actually on the spawn point is one possible strategy, but ultimately, I think people will back off out of aggro range from the spawn precisely because of the reasons you cite. If guilds A, B, and C all have people sitting on the spawn point, initial random aggro is on a player from guild A totally randomly, then guilds B and C lose out, and possibly lose members to AE dmg or early bouncing aggro before a tank gets secured on it. This means that if Guild A ultimately fails, guilds B and C will be in a worse position to contest for the next shot since they will have had players die with little prospect for a res and rebuff until Guild A wipes or wins. On the other hand, if someone from Guild A has initial aggro and Guild B "picks it up" in the initial melee, then grats Guild B, you just got banned... should have paid more attention to the initial aggro message. Either through pre-meditated reasoning, or trial and error, I think most raid forces will quickly conclude that sitting on the spawn point gives at best a random shot at initial aggro as opposed to a skill based chance (reaction time) for standing off.... UPDATE: I have refined the rule to be more precise about handling this situation.

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

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".

I agree. I'll work on making the language more precise. UPDATE: Done, see main post

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

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.

I did not spell this out. The rule doesn't specifically account for this, so I will make sure that is rectified in the re-write. My intention was that the mob is Free For All again, but with no additional aggro messages to determine a priority, it could descend into a KS match. I am considering alternatives. I will update the main post when I have reached a conclusion, or at least a more firm proposal. UPDATE: Done, see main post.

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

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

Forgive my ignorance of this situation, but I am not aware of what happened. I don't really want to rehash it in this thread, either though. However, much like camping, this is not an all or nothing proposition. I never expected my rule to eliminate all camping or all KSing. I think it is foolish to expect that from any proposal. Some of it is going to happen. The question is "would it be reduced to a level acceptable to the devs and the playerbase?"

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

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").

This is moderated by the similar penalties for false accusations. Under my suggestions, when a petition is made for a KSing or Training violation over a raid target, someone is getting banned, either the petitioner, or the person being petitioned about. Those are high stakes, and they will make people think twice before just crying foul. As a potential petitioner, a player better be sure the logs will back him up and/or consider running fraps.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I predict the behavior that results in a petition to the GMs will decrease with my ruleset. You believe it will not. We are assessing something about the situations differently. So be it.

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

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.

Sure, "will increase for that period of time" is a nice turn of phrase to make it sound like I am supporting an increase of camping, but we've had guilds camping one spawn for 3+ days... 72 hours... that's what I've heard anyway, I sure as hell wasn't parked in one zone for that long. To me, there is no way to slice a 6 to 12 hour window of camping which involves people keeping their eyeballs on the screen and being actively at the controls so that it becomes "more camping" or "less acceptable" to most raiders on this server than rotations of 15+ people from multiple guilds sitting in a zone for 72+ hours. My plan reduces and changes camping from the status quo.