Proposed Raid Rule Adjustments/Changes

[Striiker]

I appreciate that devs are busy. This adjustment was proposed for consideration at some point. If it's a relatively minor tweak, then it could be a candidate for a more immediate implementation. If there's a lot more to it, then it can be set aside for future contemplation. We are all trying to be creative to address the problems which crop up with a solution to a problem.

Concerning the advantage that a larger guild would have, this is mitigated by restricting the number of taggers camped near the spawn location (although a guild could send out more pullers from the raid location to assist). Also, it's not too difficult to figure out the roaming path and they can play smartly with a couple good trackers running along that path to find the target. The intent was to have a specific area for the raids to camp out.

I just don't know if it's better to replace one broken system with another (auto fire keyboards vs. IP exempt accounts on fast computers with low latency connections). Perhaps it's worth a test run for a month?

[Komodon]

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

I just don't know if it's better to replace one broken system with another (auto fire keyboards vs. IP exempt accounts on fast computers with low latency connections). Perhaps it's worth a test run for a month?

Again, it really just boils down to a lesser evil factor here. Personally, i know i'd rather lose FTE to the puller with a fast pc then some pet agro'ing .1 seconds after spawn and who's owner i suspect wasn't even sitting at the keyboard.

The potential of seeing spam/auto-fire tracking is something that's likely only going to expand and get worse in Velious, so the sooner we nip it in the butt the better for everybody imo. Not to mention if you choose to keep it simple with a basic "people in the zone at the time of spawn can not secure an FTE"...it's still a pretty easy fix. Boom, no more tears or finger pointing about auto-firing ever again [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If a few of you class R guilds (who plan on going for FFA mobs) want to give it a try this weekend, TMO is game. Just give the word here.

[Ella`Ella]

I would like to revisit this thread, specifically to seek commentary by Inglourious Basterds' thoughts on the matter.

Hokushin, I know you and I both agreed on this matter in the past and would like us to reconsider it's mutual benefit to both Class-C guilds and to Class-R.

[Hokushin]

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

I would like to revisit this thread, specifically to seek commentary by Inglourious Basterds' thoughts on the matter.

Hokushin, I know you and I both agreed on this matter in the past and would like us to reconsider it's mutual benefit to both Class-C guilds and to Class-R.

My PM to you 3 weeks ago was that I was not agreeing to the ranger tracking in VP, since you guys trained us on 5/14's full repop.. we still have not got the petition resolved.

If you would like, I will agree to a temporary ranger tracking over the next 2 weekends in VP only, and we'll see how that goes. Unfortunately for IB our pull team is outnumbered 4 to 1, but on the plus side, doing it this way allows an extra couple minutes for people to log in.

So if you would like to do the 2 week VP ranger trial, then reply here for all to see please.

[Nightbear]

Great ideas overall in this post. If the Dev Team is willing to look at even the minor changes addressed in this post I think it would be an improvement in our raid scene.

[Ella`Ella]

Signed.

We'll start the trial run next weekend to allow for 2 full cycles of VP.

[Hokushin]

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

Signed.

We'll start the trial run next weekend to allow for 2 full cycles of VP.

Any rules you want to state before the repops?

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

I believe these are what we discussed in our vent meeting 6 weeks ago

[Komodon]

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

Any rules you want to state before the repops?

1: No pullers camp past entrance bridge, Ranger trackers will be frapsing
2: No more than 1 ranger in zone
3: Anyone in zone when the dragon spawns will not be allowed to FTE, or assist
4: Forfeit the current spawned dragon if the rules are broken

I believe these are what we discussed in our vent meeting 6 weeks ago

1. Like we talked about then, the problem with trying to police where the FTE'ers are logging into is that it adds an extra layer of potential issues and policing needs to the equation. I thought we compromised with limiting it to 2 FTE'ers logging into any one spawn point. Anymore then that and we can both agree ahead of time to forfeit the mob on spawn.

2. We agreed to 2, pending you guys getting a second ranger in there. If that didn't happen then we are fine going with the one if that's what we need to do to make it work.

3. Sounds good

4. Sounds good

[Hokushin]

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

1. Like we talked about then, the problem with trying to police where the FTE'ers are logging into is that it adds an extra layer of potential issues and policing needs to the equation. I thought we compromised with limiting it to

2. We agreed to 2, pending you guys getting a second ranger in there. If that didn't happen then we are fine going with the one if that's what we need to do to make it work.

1. Camping players out at doors will only make it a race to see who's computer is faster, not really the point of this test. If we are camping at doors, then #3 is pointless. By not passing first bridge, this gives all dragons equal opportunities. Rather than policing how many people are at each door, there is only 1 spot that needs to be watched. Since you are the larger guild, you could easily just camp 2 pullers at each dragon door and only log in certain ones for that dragon when multiple are in window. IB does not have that luxury, especially since our numbers are low 20's now in VP. We will agree to zone in bridge camping, otherwise it won't be worth wasting our time.

2. 1 ranger is what you initially proposed, I mentioned 2 if we could get a second, but we only have 1.

[Komodon]

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

1. Camping players out at doors will only make it a race to see who's computer is faster, not really the point of this test. If we are camping at doors, then #3 is pointless. By not passing first bridge, this gives all dragons equal opportunities. Rather than policing how many people are at each door, there is only 1 spot that needs to be watched.

Again, the problem with not simply camping at the door is that we don't want to turn it into a constant petition quest over every little issue that will undoubtfully arise in a mad dash up that sees multiple mobs getting trained around. Plus it enters the need to both position and run yet another full time fraps guy.

Since you are the larger guild, you could easily just camp 2 pullers at each dragon door and only log in certain ones for that dragon when multiple are in window. IB does not have that luxury, especially since our numbers are low 20's now in VP. We will agree to zone in bridge camping, otherwise it won't be worth wasting our time.

While i understand your surface concern on this, how is that any different then what we are doing now, and would be doing in the event you called off this deal?

Well, other then the fact nobody is going to be autofiring FTEs anymore. That shouldn't be a hangup here.