Proposed Raid Rule Adjustments/Changes

[getsome]

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

1. Like we talked about then, the problem with trying to police where the FTE'ers are logging into is that it adds an extra layer of potential issues and policing needs to the equation. I thought we compromised with limiting it to 2 FTE'ers logging into any one spawn point. Anymore then that and we can both agree ahead of time to forfeit the mob on spawn.

Once you get on the same page, get back to us. As of now you can forget it until you agree in public to the terms you already proposed.

05-23-2014, 06:09 PM

Unbrella: Let's ranger track this round of VP instead of Jav Spamming. We've talked about it before and seemed to be in agreement that it would be best for all parties. max of 2 ranger trackers and all pullers start at the zone in and race. Easy enough.

[Komodon]

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

Once you get on the same page, get back to us. As of now you can forget it until you agree in public to the terms you already proposed.

We are on the same page. You are putting up a quote that was made a week before i even put up this thread, and after further speculative discussion was had on the matter.

Nice try though (which is also why we latter decided to try going straight through Hoku in our attempt to do away with the autofiring, btw).

[Hokushin]

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

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

IB Signing to these rules.


Please quote and sign if you would like to do the test, starting from 6/19 until 6/30 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hokushin]

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

Any rules you want to state before the repops?

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

PD is going into window soon, please let us know if you are signing off on your original proposal or not. Your members have came to me with concerns of your ranger not being at the zone in able to fraps the FTE'ers running from bridge.
The solution is simple: Ranger keeps entrance racnar targeted, and bind sights, giving full view to police. It is easier to police just the entrance bridge, than police who or how many are logging in at each door at any given time..

If you cannot agree to the rules you initially offered us, then the FTE race can continue.

[Komodon]

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

PD is going into window soon, please let us know if you are signing off on your original proposal or not. Your members have came to me with concerns of your ranger not being at the zone in able to fraps the FTE'ers running from bridge.
The solution is simple: Ranger keeps entrance racnar targeted, and bind sights, giving full view to police. It is easier to police just the entrance bridge, than police who or how many are logging in at each door at any given time..

If you cannot agree to the rules you initially offered us, then the FTE race can continue.

The "simple" solution here is to keep doing what we are doing, while "simply" taking autofire out of the equation.

Your way isn't as simple, as we've already seen anytime we didn't have people parked up there. This will just lead to the "petition every kill" type of shit we are trying to avoid, with everybody screaming bloody murder over what happened on the run up and constant calls for the other side to concede.

Just because you feel your way gives *you* (and i stress the you in that btw, since you seem most concerned with how this effects you as an individual player) the best chance to win without autofire, that doesn't make it the right choice for everybody Hoku.

So again:

Trying to use autofire use as some sort of negotiating chip is beyond retarded, so round and round we go i guess.

[wycca]

I wanted to echo some of Sirken's concerns and add some. Basically, you now will require some very specific tracker classes and setups. All in all, it would end up hurting the more casual or smaller guilds competitiveness without changing the raid scene much. You'd just end up requiring specific classes. It would only be a bard rush setup in PoHate really IMO.

All in all, I'd rather go with the current FTE lottery - which about any class can participate in - rather than some specific sniping setups. I think we'd be trading something that is silly (ie 10+ guilds contesting spawns that are engaged immediately and die in like 15sec) for something that is worse.

In the end the problem is that we have 10-13 guilds competing for 32k hp mob spawns - this is why they implemented instanced raid content on live. Fiddle with the rules all you want, you just end up creating new abominations of raid/tracking strats as guilds compensate to gain an advantage.

[getsome]

The quote is from a conversation between Unbrella and Hokushin.

[Komodon]

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

The quote is from a conversation between Unbrella and Hokushin.

Ok that makes more sense to me then, although my point on it being a dated conversations still stands.

It really shouldn't have to come down to Unbrella's suggestion that we hold off here. There is zero reason our guilds can't come to an immediate compromise that moves the autofire issue forward, even if it's a simple agreement that we do everything we are doing now anyway except allowing the trackers (whether it be rangers or face trackers) and anybody in the zone to get/secure FTE.

Trying to use autofire use as some sort of negotiating chip is beyond retarded though, so round and round we go i guess.

[Ella`Ella]

Maybe we should hold off until my petition on auto-firing and IP expemtion abuses is answered before we go any further with this?

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

*sigh*

Again, that's an old quote Getsome. Unbrella and you throwing around ideas in general theory on the need to get rid of spam clicking in VP wasn't what you are trying to portray it as here. Further debate, official posts, and conversations were had after-the-fact.

That's between me and Hokushin. TMO leadership doesn't communicate through Getsome.

[Ella`Ella]

To further the point Mazam is trying to reinforce, there is no real concern over where FTE'ers are camped. We'd like to maintain the 2 person limit that we currently have, but making sure that every person is camped at the zone-in is going to be a matter or micro-managing and policing. Yes, TMO may have a larger base membership, but it is a rare occasion that more than 2 dragons in VP are in window at the same time. I believe each guild can afford 4 members for a pull team. I know even TMO couldn't afford to expect a minimum of 12 members (2 camped at each spawn) to be 100% reliable upon the batphone. We both know, as with both our guilds, every FTE and pull comes down to the same dedicated members, and to be honest - our number of those players is relatively on par with the number of players you have that fit that bill. Ultimately, roster numbers would not effect the scenario to the extent that you may currently be considering.

Neither guild in Class-C is in favor of heavy policing/more rules, so we're trying to make this bare-bones simple with only the ambition of ruling out auto-fire and IP exemption abuses. This isn't a personal attack on any particular guild, more a guideline to help steer us away from any occurrences that might arise.

I understand the concern of fastest computer wins, but really, we're never going to be able to tell who has the fastest computer and even in that case, it's not always going to be consistent. There is always going to be some X-factor in whatever rule set we try to employ. And to be honest, I'd rather leave that X-factor to some manner of random chance than abuse/player manipulation.