Proposition For Raid Rules - Input Requested

[baramur]

There is simple things you will not change. Alarti i have heard you time and time again agree that poopsocking is evil, yet you fail to mention that was TMO that caused poopsocking to be used. You can say you did not start it, but if that what guilds had to do to win a mob against tmo monopoly, because tmo refused to let others enjoy killing targets, then you TMO is responsible. All this could have been avoided by TMO simply sharing a few mobs here and there, or saying hey server we are gonna take 1 week a month break, enjoy, but you did not, you said "Hey server, fuck all you guys, if you want epics, reach into your banks. Pay us, because you all suck, and we are gods of eq." Personally i would love to see it where TMO was raid banned until velious, considering you have monopolized your share of loot for the last 3 years, and then turned and talked shit about everyone while doing it. But, in the spirit of christmas, i will actually give you all the benefit of the doubt. Now then why are we making things so tough. Why not take the 2 best ideas we have and implement them together with a few minor tweeks.

First off 2 hour no touch limit is way to long, i believe in sharing, but i also believe people should have to work for loot, not just be handed opportunities. After all only guild to be handed mobs was TMO's vp rotation. That said. 1Hour is sufficient. This MAKES guilds track for the mobs they want. This gives guilds time to log on and prepare and have a real engage. If you cant mobilize for vs or trak in 30min, then you shouldnt be allowed to a chance to kill them without competition. Now this said, wouldn't this mean it would simply go TMO, IB, TMO, IB,,,,,Yep prolly. And i think IB, FE, other guild is to easy, i was thinking this.

HERE IS MY SUGGESTION.

If IB/FE and TMO combine to kill 4 targets in a row, both guilds will agree not to engage the 5th spawn for a time of no less then 6 hours.

IB/FE and TMO agree that the first week of each month they will not engage TAL/GORE/FAY/SEV/NAGGY/VOX/DRACO/INNY/Maestro

ALL GUILDS AGREE to Not engaging a mob within 1 Hour of its spawn, if they killed its last spawn. If said guild has killed last 2 spawns they Agree not to engage 3rd spawn for 6 hours.

Trak/VS/CT Will be open competition, except, these mobs will have a 15 minute engage timer if prior kill, and if FE/IB and TMO combine to kill mob 4 times in a row, they will Agree to neither engage mob for 6 hours. 15 min still forces competition.

VP will remain FTE and open for further discussion later on down the road.

[Splorf22]

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

Loraen your anti-variance crusade is both righteous and amusing. Occasional repops can be good, but would ultimately be time biased. There is no point to having repops until the ability to camp inside of raid zones is removed.

Heheheh you should read Slave's posts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But yes, I think we need to do something about all the alts. Here is one random suggestion: Count the number of 55+ characters logged into by each IP, and dock them some XP. Say 1 xp death for each toon over one. So:

• Yendor: one toon, no change
• Loraen/Sakuragi: two toons, each eat one XP death (15%)
• Jeremy/Bruce/Gangstalicious: three toons, each eats two XP deaths (30%)

Voila, if you wanna keep a raid force logged out at targets you get to pay the price. If you want to have multiple alts, that's no problem at all: just pick which one you want to play one week and rotate them.

[Ungriim]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Heheheh you should read Slave's posts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But yes, I think we need to do something about all the alts. Here is one random suggestion: Count the number of 55+ characters logged into by each IP, and dock them some XP. Say 1 xp death for each toon over one. So:

• Yendor: one toon, no change
• Loraen/Sakuragi: two toons, each eat one XP death (15%)
• Jeremy/Bruce/Gangstalicious: three toons, each eats two XP deaths (30%)

Voila, if you wanna keep a raid force logged out at targets you get to pay the price.

If you want to have multiple alts, that's no problem at all: just pick which one you want to play one week and rotate them.

Poor Snackromancer!

[Autotune]

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

How about first in force, no leapfrogging?

define first.
define force.
define leapfrogging.

[radditsu]

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

define first.
define force.
define leapfrogging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[Autotune]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

We all know on p99 when it comes to raiding that you have to have solid definitions or it's going to be interpreted different by each guild.

[Alarti0001]

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

First = the first guild
Force = the quantity necessary as deemed by the server/guild summit/ whatever
Leapfrogging = if there is a guild first in force ready to engage at the spawn point, another guild will not attempt FTE snipe or any of that BS

Good definitions. Good defined as terrible

[Autotune]

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

First = the first guild
Force = the quantity necessary as deemed by the server/guild summit/ whatever
Leapfrogging = if there is a guild first in force ready to engage at the spawn point, another guild will not attempt FTE snipe or any of that BS

So, basically what guild can log in the most people the fastest on any given target.


This doesn't solve anything but FTE disputes and maybe accidental trains.

[Alarti0001]

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

Not at all. If a guild chooses to "sock" a target with enough people (say 20+) then other guilds will not try to assemble a competing raid force and jump them. Maybe another guild would bring in a force when the mob spawns or is about to spawn and hope for a wipe, but it would get rid of FTE wars.

Your suggestion is what created variance in the first place. Lets not repeat past mistakes just cause you are "newer".

[YendorLootmonkey]

I liked the system where each guild had X amount of "raid points" per week or month, and raid targets were worth varying amount of points based on value/demand. It added another element of strategy to it (i.e. does a guild burn up their quota early in the month and then become non-competitive towards the end of the month, or do they save their quota in order to maintain competitiveness later in the month after other guilds may have used up their quota at the risk of missing out on mobs for the entire month?)

There's still competition, allows guilds to focus on encounters they might need, and it's not a rotation. It does prevent monopolization if the raid target values and quotas are set correctly. Guilds still have to track and put effort in. Could create a situation where Trak spawns at the end of the month and none of the usual guilds have an available quota to go after it so one of "the new guilds" gets a shot.

I think this was Stealin's idea? Or Xasten's?

One potential issue could be individuals floating between guilds or creating backup guilds so they would have "reserve points." Also, not sure how to consider joint raids... assuming both guilds get the points applied against them.