My proposal for Raiding guilds and GMs of P1999

[astarothel]

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

PS: Seriously who are you again?

Funny. Most people know who Aadill is. Who are you?

[Aadill]

I cannot verify or deny your claims of truth, but I am glad you understand my reference. The important thing to note is that from an outsiders point of view, it doesn't look to be an impartial, accurate timeline. Perhaps it is, but I know for a fact one of your points is wrong. DA was formed to remove itself from Salty's leadership. As of right now, I'm under the perception we are adjusting to the fact that a) FB rejected the original raid rules and b) DA never had a say in them.

On to your counterpoints: Upon further clarification I do see what you are saying, but there are issues with where these rules may belong.

1) Game changing is game changing. I don't care who it affects or to what extent it affects them unless it's the owner of the server/staff, because you are altering the code of the game with the intention to affect, even as you say, part of the population of the server. As I said, I'm mainly pointing out the fact that this is not a serverwide population decision until the GMs decide to make it one. To clarify: this doesn't belong in a ruleset for raids. It is a separate suggestion that should be brought up with the GMs with listed arguments as to why it should be put in place. With that said, multiple people have said there are ways around it so I'm not sure how much it actually provides in terms of a solid rule that is worth adding for the guilds to operate with civility.

2) I see this as a great possibility but it does not work in some situations. No raid force will keep their distance once the main target is in sight, because they want to be the ones to leapfrog and obtain agro first. That's why I am arguing that outdoor zone encounters that you see in Kunark and Velious makes this a valid idea but not for the encounters that exist right now. CT is a special case, Naggy and Vox are inside with limited space to agro/maintain agro and not pull on to your raid or another raid. Most of the other encounters also fall under this same category. I don't know how it worked before when things were still in a state of FFA, but I can imagine it wasn't pretty. Feel free to enlighten me, but I truly do not see how two, three, or four opposing raids are going to look at the current raid targets and consider that reasonable.

3) I kinda like the idea that the encounters would be slightly more rare, so I'm not disagreeing. I'm fairly certain that all of the guilds are willing to continue to log in but I'm simply pointing out the fact that if the majority of interest of any particular guild is simply for boss encounters, then very little else will go on and interest will be lost. That's a hypothetical that I cannot prove or disprove but I invite the probability of it to be discussed as an issue of server population. I assume that as a spokesman for IB you have discussed this with your new recruits as a possibility that less raids might be on the table and do indeed have their assurance on your claim.


4) We bother with rules because we should be able to follow them with civility. We bother with rules because it serves as a check to power and the lack thereof. I don't see the point of this rule only because it would probably be easier for the GM to look at the petition, jump to the zone, despawn the mob, and leave. No mediation, no squabble over whose evidence is more correct because it would merit nothing. Why, if they have this power, would they care to hear your case and my case about a situation? I unfortunately have not been present for the reasons that GMs have been summoned in the past but I read all the drama about it. I can claim suspicion about a lot of things, and I can claim admission of fault on others. The idea that the GMs favor any group gets old. We think you are favored, you think we are favored. We could run a statistical study on the number of times the GMs reluctantly log in and mediate issues between forces, and who they favor, or we could just stop this argument.

As for who I am: I am Aadill Pickle, class leader Ranger of Dark Ascension. I played a ranger because I literally love the idea of taking DTs and I like to always hear the sound of a barking dog every two seconds when I attack something. I honestly have no idea who you are other than from your two posts on this forum. I am not here to fight for my guild's wishes to beat you out on the majority of every cycle of mobs, nor am I here to express my guild's discontent about not getting the majority of every cycle of mobs. I am not here to shoot down every idea, only to give input and receive input back in hopes that we can expound upon those ideas that have merit and actually work something out that will result in LESS animosity among players. Competition is good and that is what makes this game great, but I do hope you're not rocking the boat just to rock the boat. We're all on it.

I have asked to attend the next meeting to further explore the ideas we've come up with and have not received an okay on this. With that in mind I am maintaining a forum presence to at least further some ideas here.


Also: Yes. No Half-assling it.

[Alleusion]

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

GMs used to just despawn mobs if there was drama. It was tough but fair, no one could claim favouritism then!

Until the day that Brenlo spawned 5 Ragefires back to back because the guilds wouldn't quit fighting and no one was willing to back down or gtfo out of Skyfire. That night the cleric epic was changed to the current one on live where you hand in pearls to the chick in SF to spawn the dragon.

[nerfed]

current rules don't bother me that much but some people are bored of afk camping.

imo, IB, DA rotation, if you're raid is not in the zone within 15 minutes of spawn it is ffa.

Of course other guilds could crash the party by camping per current rules but I haven't seen them camp any bosses yet.

[bullet]

I'm down for some classic WoW!

[astarothel]

Yeah. Classic was actually fun. Maybe it had to do something with kazzak and all those corrupted emerald dream dragons top end guilds had to compete to kill...

[sidgb]

Whatever you do, don't forget this clause:

Should a system be agreed upon by a select group of "elite" guilds that excludes any guild, alliance or PuG raid. The excluded raid groups are not bound by the rules agreed upon without their consent and may engage the target in any manner they deem necessary to force recognition of their clam.

[Aadill]

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

Whatever you do, don't forget this clause:

Should a system be agreed upon by a select group of "elite" guilds that excludes any guild, alliance or PuG raid. The excluded raid groups are not bound by the rules agreed upon without their consent and may engage the target in any manner they deem necessary to force recognition of their clam.

Basically you'd revert to server rules in that case - claim a mob with 15 people, no training, no KSing.

[sidgb]

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

Basically you'd revert to server rules in that case - claim a mob with 15 people, no training, no KSing.

If server rules force other raids to meet a higher bar for content access ... then no.

They participate in the same ruleset or are governed by no ruleset.

[Aadill]

Then the only claim they will have is not to be KSd.

I'm not saying a guild will leapfrog, but I'm also not saying they won't. The rules are out the door on both ends if you don't comply. Being a renegade doesn't mean you just get to do what you want, it means no one else will respect you. Maybe they'll envy you a little bit but in the end you're still on your own.