My proposal for Raiding guilds and GMs of P1999

[Skope]

Dumping spawn variance will increase guild-mob monopolies and doesn't address the issue of camping. The 48h +/- and 24 +/- allow for multiple guilds of all time zones to get a fair shot, but it's actually been abused because of the first to 15 in zone rule; essentially making the 48hour +/- a 10-15minute "get back to your PC" event for the guild that's been in there 3-4 days. Variance also makes sure that these guilds camping a target for 3 days may inevitably miss out on another target (say vox spawned early). Variance isn't a bad idea, it's ultimately which rules it's coupled with that make or break its intended purpose.

[Phallax]

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

Dumping spawn variance will increase guild-mob monopolies and doesn't address the issue of camping. The 48h +/- and 24 +/- allow for multiple guilds of all time zones to get a fair shot, but it's actually been abused because of the first to 15 in zone rule; essentially making the 48hour +/- a 10-15minute "get back to your PC" event for the guild that's been in there 3-4 days. Variance also makes sure that these guilds camping a target for 3 days may inevitably miss out on another target (say vox spawned early). Variance isn't a bad idea, it's ultimately which rules it's coupled with that make or break its intended purpose.

I think variance will destroy the raiding atmosphere in velious. Sure it works now but will fail later. There NEEDs to be some sort of agreement between guilds that doesnt include camping. NToV and VP has to many targets in 1 zone for the current rules to handle correctly.

But Phallax, Velious is years away.

BTW when Variance was introduced to EQlive it was only +/-12 not this 48 bs.

Sure it is, but why wait untill then to refine the raid rules to work with it. A rotation or FFA may not work so well now, but with tons more targets in the future it may work then.

[snifs]

What if the rule changed from "first 15 in zone claim the mob" to something more like "first 30 in zone claim the mob."

It's quite rare that I see any bosses taken down with 15 members of a guild, aside from maybe Maestro or Phinny.

Obv. the number to claim on certain encounters may be lower (maestro), but if you needed 30 to claim Inny, this would still enforce a mobilization race, and guilds wouldn't be able to camp out in multiple zones. I really don't see DA or IB or any other guild camping bosses with 30 members at a time for 2 days straight, it wouldn't be possible unless they just mass recruited to ensure camping mobs, which i can ensure neither guild would want to do.

Now maybe 30 is too high or too little I don't know. But for every boss kill I've seen for DA and IB, they have had more than 30...aside from a few select bosses.

Now, sure, a guild could drop 30 in PoHate and armor pharm and chill in PoHate for as long as they can hold 30, but I think this would greatly reduce camping and encourage a bit more of mobilization tactics.

thoughts?

[astarothel]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Skope]

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 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.

I think Nilbog and I are on the same page, but with a little deviation. I do think that having a rotation can, and most certainly will, decrease GM intervention drastically. Though I think with all the hate-spewing and some of the attitudes at high end raiding, a player-made and enforced rotation would see petty petitions and disputes at a higher rate than a GM enforced and GM/Player constructed agreement to a rotation, particularly when guild A feels it isn't being treated fairly by guild B. Guild A decides not to abide by player-made rules. Then neither does guild B, and you're essentially back to FFA and all the chaos that it may bring. A GM stamp of approval backed by a shiny hammer would prevent that.

12 hour variance allows for a 1 hour engagement on a mob (inny/CT/dragons), -- and perhaps the same on draco/maestro -- allows for mobilization techniques, lesser levels of camping, and active clearing.