Play Nice Policy/LNS/RvR needs overhaul before Velious

[Guide.Chroma]

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

The loser guild is trying to avoid fighting. That is not in question.

Assume there are two equal raid targets. Small guild tries to snipe, gets caught and loses a PvP skirmish. They call LnS and run off to the next raid target while the winning team meds up after PvP skirmish and then completes the target they fought and won for. They both get a raid target.

Basically the request is to punish the losing team somewhat. If there was no LnS the winning team could camp corpses and down both raid targets. With a lockout before looting your corpse it would be similar to this without the players griefing the losing players directly.

With much more than 2 targets the losing guild won't miss all their opportunity to raid that day, but losing a PvP skirmish will make them miss out on 1-2 hours of raiding instead of no time penalty what so ever.

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

[Fame]

read the first few lines, A-fuckin-MEN! Repeal this shit, take us back to the old days, exp loss on pvp death, no pnp and what the fuck is a GM?

[Fame]

How much time is pnp/LnS taking from the GMs through petitionquest? If more than 1-2 hours per week, fuck pnp.

[Colgate]

i'd say a good 95% of suspensions that happen on red99 are from PNP

at least 50% of those are falsified/retarded LNS "violations" that either did not actually happen or should not warrant a suspension

[Colgate]

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

Can you not recover a raid force quicker than a full corpse recover takes? Losing means they lost their chance at that mob. If you want to stop them from taking another mob, beat them there as well.

You're not going to get changes that make it easier for the top guild to monoplise more content. You're going to have to work hard in order to oppress the masses.

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

[daasgoot_2.0]

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

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

good example of this is ferrott/fear

let someone die in ferrott, call force LNS.. everyone zones into or plugs into fear and waits for the opposing force to engage mob.

[Guide.Chroma]

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

the problem right now is that you can engage, lose 2 people, and call force LNS for dozens of more players that plugged and immediately leave like nothing happened

there's really no penalty for taking a fight and losing

there's also no way to actually establish zone control right now considering you can just eat a sacrificial lamb death and then call LNS into a zone that someone is trying to stop you from entering via pvp

What's your thoughts on only allowing a guild to have 1 active LNS. Essentially if they are LNS locked from an engagement, they can't LNS their force again until it expires.

This way they atleast have to choose battles more carefully, but aren't being destroyed for attempting to contest (something that I would think should be encouraged).

I'd also like to emphasise this quote from the LNS policy: "This timer will start after the last person has exited the zone". This can mean a lockout lasts much longer than an hour.

[Uuruk]

I'd really like to see KC be open pvp.

[Guide.Chroma]

Originally Posted by daasgoot_2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

good example of this is ferrott/fear

let someone die in ferrott, call force LNS.. everyone zones into or plugs into fear and waits for the opposing force to engage mob.

I'll look into some sort of answer for this leapfrogging behavior. Personally I think it's an exploit of the rules, and I would be inclined to say Sirken would agree (no guarantee there, I am the bottom rung on the ladder after all).

The idea is to loot and then leave, not loot and move forward. I see potential fixes to be the victor declaring the locked zone, or establishing an adjacency rule. I'm in favour of the first.

[red99playing]

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

While I think you could revamp the PNP policy to protect newer players and exclude the high end player, I personally don't think anyone on a pvp server should have an inherent right to safety. Many of the big guilds already have systems in place to power level and protect low level characters while they get set up on red and actively recruit anyone they can to replace the churn of the endgame raid scenes.

Being a new player on Rallos Zek, you had no inherent right to safety and the ability to be killed multiple times and harassed with item loss. The players formed communities and anti-pk alliances where they protected themselves in vigilante anti-pk groups that would protect new players as well as punish and ostracize undesirable players.

With current policy there is little reason for player interaction as you simply LNS without risk to the next zone and continue on your leveling process with no risk to yourself and no real way to punish a PK player as he can simply do the same. This creates a game play system where building fellowships with other players is unnecessary as you can solve all your problems yourself, which is against the very nature of a community driven game like Everquest.

Rallos Zek had a good risk mechanic to help deter grieving, Red99 Doesn't allow noobs to raid boss a twink down for two reasons most times.

1. No Item loot
2. Low server Pop
secret #3. YT Seekers with 60 oors and gear made of rmt bait

the risks that comes with pvp on this server is a loss of carried cash and PvE/ PVP potential in that zone for the next hour.

Players do need to interact with each other to progress for a multitude of reasons. PVP contest is definitely one of them.