PnP is classic, with highlights

[Syft-X]

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

If you can dig this up somehow..

https://www.everquest.com/library/rz_rule_sets.jsp

might have it

Otherwise: no guild was disbanded for being dominant on live ever. Yes, even if they were as dominant as Empire is currently.

So you want us to follow your PNP except the parts you don't like, and your proof for which ones we should and shouldn't follow is solely based on your word.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nirgon]

Oh here we go someone quoted it

Source:

This link is taken directly from http://eqlive.station.sony.com/library/rz_rule_sets.jsp .

1.
If raid X had yet to engage in the encounter, the raid should find a PvP solution - easy enough, we seem to agree on this.
2. If raid X had engaged in the encounter and it was disrupted through PvP by group Y who did not have adequate force to have a reasonable chance for the encounter, we will enforce the PnP - Makes since, the only reason to do so would be to cause intentional experience loss.
3. If both raid X and Y engage simultaneously, they should find a PvP solution - Seems reasonable.
4. If raid X had engaged in the encounter and it was disrupted through PvP by group Y who did have adequate force to have a reasonable chance for the encounter, raid X should find a PvP solution - Violates the rules, this policy simply doesn't work. If group x is engaged w/ PvE content and then group y engages group x, whether they have a full raid force or not, the vast majority of group x will be killed by the PvE content, not by means of PvP so there is no PvP solution in this event, to intentionally do so would cause multiple experience deaths. The only acception to this is if group x engages the PvE content while already engaged in PvP with group y.
5. If raid X had engaged in the encounter and it was disrupted through PvP by group Y by training, we will enforce the PnP - How ? If group y trains group x while engaged on the PvE encounter, there is no PvP, its simply training.

I win.

Again.

[Pikrib]

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

Oh here we go someone quoted it

Source:




I win.

Again.

Link broken please try hard again.

[Pikrib]

nm working now.

[Nirgon]

No that message board is an active link and has quotes from the page that is now down.

Sorry about being right

[SamwiseRed]

That post is from 2005.

[Nirgon]

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

That post is from 2005.

But when was the set of raid rules created? It was in effect during raid PvP in Velious on Rallos Zek.

I didn't make it up out of thin air and I found a reference to it.

[Pikrib]

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

That post is from 2005.

Yar and it's a link to a quote of a quote. please find y2k pnp and get back to us.

[Nirgon]

BK you are trying to get fear and charm into pvp on our timeline and truly believe it worked this way

Its probably the most glaringly obvious pvp change people would remember and you are bashing yourself in the face with it like a retard

[Syft-X]

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

BK you are trying to get fear and charm into pvp on our timeline and truly believe it worked this way

Its probably the most glaringly obvious pvp change people would remember and you are bashing yourself in the face with it like a retard

Nope was never trying to get fear and charm added as a matter of fact I directly said I was opposed to it like 9 times, even tho you keep trying to sell that lie like no one can read the thread for themselves.

Was merely showing how you pick and choose what you want from Classic depending on how it will impact your guild...just as you are doing now with this PNP BS.