|
|
|
|
#1
06-18-2010, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
Alawen:
Nizzarr made a post on the forums about a possible idea that I believe does not wholly represent the beliefs of Dark Ascension, Remedy, Divinity, or Inglourious Basterds. I'd like to invite you to at least acknowledge the fact that because of the thread, other ideas have been passed around in attempt to at least come up with some alternatives to the current ruleset. There is no combination of words that disguises the reasoning for a particular vote. To make the assumption of these intentions, however, is to place bias in your argument. We, as a community, will never be able to scribe out a ruleset that works for everyone due to this bias. Obviously the next best choice is to benefit as many people that are affected as possible. With the current raid scene, DA and IB are the only ones affected. Other guilds are certainly interested in raiding but the utilization of the current ruleset has pushed out any other participants. I do understand your concern about rotations. Your point is well taken with things such as VP and ST. This is why all of this needs to be discussed. Some ideas about FFA has been passed around. Other ideas such as Suicide Kings and a soft rotation have also been thrown about. Something like SK offers a rotation to those who mobilize, but still contributes to the problem that you are concerned with. Perhaps it is not as bad as you think, or it is worse than I think. With the current ruleset we do see some level of competition. It is not the same type, but the rules in place were decided by the players. The "loophole" you keep talking about is, if I'm not mistaken, a post by a GM saying that "if you want to camp your guild out for days on end, go right ahead [you crazy f**ks]". To expound on that: If you are willing to camp, you will receive a reward, assuming you mobilize first, maintain a presence, and do not fail at the encounter. If you choose to go after certain mobs, you understand the risk of losing others. That's the beauty of the variance system. Thus far, IB received Lady Vox and Lord Nagafen; DA received Innoruuk, Maestro, dracoliche, Cazic Thule. Last week it was just the opposite, and Divinity took down Maestro due to a dispute between DA and IB. In all of this, there were choices that were made about which mobs to camp. Is this your idea of classic EQ competition? Perhaps not. Is camping fun? There seems to be a majority vote towards no. The current ruleset does force you to make decisions as to what is best for your guild. I consider that a challenge. Perhaps it is not the best solution, but unless we actually sit down and figure it out, it's going to remain as it is. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
06-18-2010, 02:28 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your implication with this metaphor, of course, is that I am a crackpot for not taking Nizzarr at his word that he only wants what's best for everyone. I have many reasons for believing that is untrue, including the fact that he's involved in wasting the staff's time with petitions to quibble over raid targets, as well as the thinly veiled elitism I see in his proposal. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
06-18-2010, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
I remember back in the old days when i was camping Hadden for the earring i had my alarm clock set for 5 hours and 30 mins in advance so i could either log in or port to bind spot at Hadden. If someone was there already i'd wait around to get the time it died and set alarm again, eventually i got the earring and 2 for my alts.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
06-19-2010, 11:11 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
More famous than Jesus and better dressed than Santa Claus; wouldn't be seen dead on a cross and have never been caught up a chimney. So I deserve your money more | |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
06-19-2010, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
The simplest solution, although not realistic at the moment, would be to have a separate PvP server. This way you could "pick your poison" and either choose the server with more rules to resolve disputes or less rules. Although this seems a ridiculous suggestion now, it's worth thinking about if the p99 server population goes through the roof and you decide to start a second server anyways.
I completely sympathize with Taxi, having come from a PvP server where even my own guild (a respected one) trained their adversaries at times and this was kind of fun to be honest. This is just how things were. Even so, the people on this server definitely shouldn't have to alter their experience based on what the few classic pvpers like me consider fun. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#9
06-19-2010, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
Hahaha... this talk of original PVP server made me recall a few funny incidents on RZ pre-expansion.
Anyone remember not being able to attack players by guards? As in not just getting aggro from guards, but not being allowed to even ranged attack them? I rolled a rogue on RZ back in 99 and some dude hooked me up with 100pp and a SBD.. I chased this noobie chanter down one day and he ran to guards, where I killed him with my bow from a safe distance. Shortly after I had a GM appear, from him reporting me, and he gave me my very first warning! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] It was also fun to minor illusion yourself as a chanter right outside felwithe to turn into a fire pot and nuke people to death while they ran around completely baffled. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Sorry for going off topic! | ||
|
|
|||
|
#10
06-19-2010, 03:21 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
