Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Raid Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2014, 10:46 AM
Hyjal Hyjal is offline
Orc

Hyjal's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Default

Nobody happy until 13 nobles a day are popping? or however many guilds there are? Gimmie a break...

This shouldn't even be a topic.
  #2  
Old 06-17-2014, 11:17 AM
Argh Argh is offline
Planar Protector

Argh's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,166
Default

GMs have already agreed to enforce it if we all agree to terms of the punishment for breaking it.
  #3  
Old 06-17-2014, 12:01 PM
-Catherin- -Catherin- is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,508
Default

No point in trying to reason with Lord Bob. They will continue to FTE without logic or fairness.

Don't really need them as part of the agreement anyways. They still havnt even legally killed a raid mob yet right?
  #4  
Old 06-17-2014, 12:45 PM
bktroost bktroost is offline
Planar Protector

bktroost's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Catherin- [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No point in trying to reason with Lord Bob. They will continue to FTE without logic or fairness.

Don't really need them as part of the agreement anyways. They still haven't even legally killed a raid mob yet right?
Well here is an interesting point. Is Genocidal Tendencies or that Baker's Guild on the raid roster? No, because they haven't legally killed anything. Should Cats Who Say Meow have a decision in how IB and TMO handle FTEs and training in VP? Probably not. Should that trading guild in EC have a seat on the committee that decides Noble agreements? Doubtful, since they aren't a raiding guild.

Every major raiding guild has agreed to this arrangement and it would appear that a guild that does not successfully raid major targets is trying to strong arm the server for misbegotten moralistic reasons. I question the legitimacy of this claim. Do we need to try to coerce Lord Bob to see reason or does their argument not hold weight against 99% of the successful raiding guilds?
__________________
  #5  
Old 06-17-2014, 12:50 PM
Pint Pint is offline
Planar Protector

Pint's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Plane of Hate
Posts: 2,049
Default

I'm doubting that hyjal speaks for his guild on this matter, I imagine he didn't even consult them. I'd say let him run his mouth and see where he ends up, looks like the final nail in the bob coffin to me.
__________________
Pint
  #6  
Old 06-17-2014, 02:58 PM
Ella`Ella Ella`Ella is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,273
Default

TMO maintains our former stance on the matter, however we will continue to respect not touching Overseers.
  #7  
Old 06-17-2014, 05:02 PM
Drakakade Drakakade is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 97
Default

Divinity supports:

1) Efreeti are raid mobs and off limit to suspended guilds
2) No killing of OoA
2) Nobles are FFA until there are Nobles spawning every day
3) Once there are Nobles spawning every day, Nobles are "your day, your noble" - people who share their day take turns.
  #8  
Old 06-17-2014, 11:08 PM
wycca wycca is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakakade [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Divinity supports:

1) Efreeti are raid mobs and off limit to suspended guilds
2) No killing of OoA
2) Nobles are FFA until there are Nobles spawning every day
3) Once there are Nobles spawning every day, Nobles are "your day, your noble" - people who share their day take turns.
AT supports the #1 & the first #2. In fact, it's silly that lvl 50 trash and duoable raid mobs in the other two planes are off-limits while raid mobs and harder stuff in PoSky is not considered a raid zone and is not part of a raid ban. The entire zone should be off-limits.

We do not support #3 (and thusly the 2nd #2 is moot). We may honor individual YNYD agreements, such as the ones that allowed the server to avoid Noble FFA fests prior to IB's action (ie TMO/IB's YNYD combined with a Class R agreement). Powtle summarized our reasoning pretty well just above on that one.
__________________
First - Monsters & Memories

Argenti | Cobblestone | Animan
  #9  
Old 06-18-2014, 09:14 PM
-Catherin- -Catherin- is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,508
Default

I figured I would post an explanation here about OoA and KoS from tonight so you can have something a little more credible to read than the current drivel in RnF.

First and foremost, Taken is wanting, and waiting for an agreement that everyone can get on board with that the GMs are willing to enforce. We have been told enforcement will happen if we can all find a common ground that we can agree upon.

Yeah we killed OoA and KoS tonight, and we didn't try to hide it. We currently do not have the anticipated agreement. Against our better judgement last week when we killed Noble Dojorn we made the decision to leave the OoA up regardless of no agreement being in place.

Someone killed that OoA and I still have no real idea of who it was other than a lot of people pointing fingers at everyone else. Fact was that it happened, so we are apparently not the only ones that think OoAs are fair game until an agreement is reached. If someone is going to kill it anyways, then it is what it is.

I find it fascinating that The Mystical Order comes out in a rage at Taken for killing them this week and threatening to say the heck with any sort of an agreement at all in retaliation, and yet were silent last week when the same thing happened. Maybe its because they don't know who did it last week so they didn't have anyone to direct that rage at?

TMO told us that it was frustrating to kill the Noble to then leave OoA up and just end up handing them to another guild. Our response is: trust us, we totally understand and relate. See: Last week when Taken killed Noble and left OoA up.

So bottom line is yeah we killed it. We are not trying to hide it like whoever did it last week. And we are not being hypocrites about it. There is currently no agreement and its as simple as that. We are more than willing to go along with an agreement and actively work towards one, and are looking forward to that hopefully happening soon.
  #10  
Old 06-17-2014, 05:27 PM
bktroost bktroost is offline
Planar Protector

bktroost's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,211
Default

Upon reviewing all parties stances posted here, we have concordant point: Hands off OOA. If there is a GM enforced system that spans across Guild Classes it is to keep OOAs up for the server's continued spawning of Noble Dojorn. (excluding Lord Bob's ubiquitous...outcry?)

I do not believe this will cause a monstrous vicissitude in the way Efreeti loot is spread to the server largely because of resets. In the months that we practiced the OOA agreement no guild received more than 5 efreeti kills. With the rarity of the belt/fists/valued loot that means that each guild might have received 1 piece of decent efreeti loot...maybe.

I think the only fear or objection to this proposal is that every guild will have monks with 2x Wu's and warriors with their belts by the time Velious comes out. If every guild has 70+raiding players and we each get 1 piece of decent efreeti drops in 3 months... well we will clearly fall short of that mark.

GM Derubael, please let us know your thoughts on this unified proposal. We thank you in advance for the generous opportunity to work with us in this incredibly busy time for GMs/Devs. We all look forward to Velious and cannot wait to experience the content we have waited years to re-experience. Thanks for taking the time to consider live content currently needing some attention.
__________________
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.