My proposal for Raiding guilds and GMs of P1999

[snifs]

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

Putting numbers on it isn't necessary. You should go with what you think you can succeed with. If you wipe, sucks to be you -- there's plenty of other raid groups probably waiting.

True, but it's been stated that GM's don't want FFA. Putting a higher number on the claim, would reduce overall camping. No guild on this server is going to be able to keep 30 members in sol B for naggy and 30 in Fear for draco, atleast not long enough for spawns.

It would push guilds into accepting a bit more of an FFA tactic over camping, and overtime maybe we could compeltely drop it and go FFA or some form of FFA.

But as of now, there is no way FFA is going to stick on this server.

[Thorjorkill]

Seems people are still trying to find the best solution for them and theirs being the primary factor, so fuck it - I'm out of this thread until you terds stop jabbing fingers and polishing your rods on each others chins.

[snifs]

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

Snifs, I'm afraid it will only cause guilds to mass-recruit even further, if these trends continue.

The downsides to rotation are rather obvious: not enough mobs, too many people, and guilds never quite being content with what they have. Though, Phallax is right in his assertion that it would be a good idea down the road, though by Velious there should already be a clear first, second, third, etc. guild structure so that the #1 guild wouldn't be raiding guild #4's mobs.

I highly doubt any guild, at least the top 4, are going to actively mass recruit just to continue camping even more.

No one LIKES the camping, it's only done because people feel it necessary at the moment.

[astarothel]

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

No guild on this server is going to be able to keep 30 members in sol B for naggy and 30 in Fear for draco, atleast not long enough for spawns.

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. I want fewer people camping total, not simply a greater concentration in one place.

[snifs]

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

That is the exact opposite of what I want to see happen. I want fewer people camping total, not simply a greater concentration in one place.

What I'm saying is, guilds just won't do it...I can tell you DA is not going to sit 30 people in one zone, for 2 days straight, just to get 1 kill. Especially with a spawn variance.

^ granted, maybe if all bosses are down, and CT is last to spawn...we could see camping for that. But I think it's at least a step closer to not camping.

I'm thinking it should force guilds into simply mobilizing members when stuff spawns.

[astarothel]

Then it won't be OMG THEY ONLY HAVE 14, it will be OMG THEY HAVE x-1, where x is the required number to claim it.

You'll have mass rushes to a zone, and inevitably there will be people that don't get the claim that will consider asshattery, provided a GM doesn't disperse them (which I think we all want to avoid).

[nilbog]

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

True, but it's been stated that GM's don't want FFA.

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.

[snifs]

If the claim number is raised, your not going to have 30+ members of IB camping Naggy, then they fall to 29 and DA tries to zerg in before they get their numbers up.

With an understanding of the guilds, it will fall back to, multiple trackers in each zone. Mob spawns, and its a rush to get claim to a mob by having 30ish or so members.

That's how FFA would work, for the most part. Except it would avoid any KS'ing or fighting for the mobs.

[snifs]

Either way, anything other than rotation...camping will be involved.

Most of the 50s that have been around all have multiple lvl 50 chars. They will simply camp them out at or near spawn locations. And when the call is made, they will log them in. There is nothing you can do about that.

That being said, I'm against a rotation, just for the sake of classic experience. On my server it was FFA. FFA is classic to me. For others, their server may have been rotation. Rotation is classic to them and what they would enjoy.

Gotta find a middle ground some how.

[Olorin]

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

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type to ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.

Almost everyone is saying they dont want to camp -- solution is relatively simple, develop some anti-camping rules. Just off the top of my head, we could allow each guild to have a tracker or two in the zone -- beyond that, all members of a guild that are in a zone when a target pops are not eligible to be part of the "first in force count".

I am sure that the leaders of these guilds could polish this some (this is just off the top of my head) or even come up with a completely different idea that accomplishes the same thing.

If we don't want to camp, lets take away the advantage that camping gives you.