Suicide Kings Raid Proposal

[Kraftwerk]

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

The suicide loot system was flawed, so is this.

Glad you took time out of your day to troll a valid topic in Server Chat forum.

Stating something is wrong or flawed without support or reasoning =/ an argument or discussion. Keep attempted flames out of this thread unless you are going to actually support your claims not just make them and vanish.

[Beau]

For those of you calling it a rotation system, please take a good look at the current rules and then stop and think a minute. It is far FAR from a rotation system, and in fact favors activity and a more FFA style than the rules we have now.

With the camping that's going on, guilds (two of them, really) are picking targets as if they were raiding on a rotation system, with the other guild generally picking another uncamped target. With the suicide kings system guilds won't have an incentive to camp and will be forced track and to mobilize immediately after a spawn (something that really hasn't been happening the past 2-3 weeks whatsoever). This is actually more in line with an FFA system that favors guilds that are active, mobilize well -- and if the timers are figured out -- guilds that are well organized.

It will be a rotation. Because people will not be dumb enough to lose their once every few weeks targets. And if you think camping still wont happen no matter what the set rules are you are kidding yourself.

[astarothel]

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

The suicide loot system was flawed, so is this.

Every system will be flawed in some manner.

Simply stating that the original Suicide Kings loot system was flawed, and that the variation proposed is _also_ flawed without stating any reasons to why is neither helpful, nor productive.

[Kinamur1999]

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

What is going to keep members of DA from disbanding and calling themselves a Pug? Also in an opposite argument, how is this fair to guilds with twice the population as other guilds who are only allowed a chance at loot as often as guilds half their size? Are they expected to just "deal with it" when they can mobilize double raids at the moment?.

I would say yes. Guilds that can't camp a raid target for a week have to "deal with it"

If the raid rules change guilds will change and adapt as they did before.

[Skope]

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

What is going to keep members of DA from disbanding and calling themselves a Pug? Also in an opposite argument, how is this fair to guilds with twice the population as other guilds who are only allowed a chance at loot as often as guilds half their size? Are they expected to just "deal with it" when they can mobilize double raids at the moment?

(If you want me to take this seriously, expect me to pick apart every hole you've got in this).

Windows are +/- 48 hours, and you sometimes see two mobs in a very short amount of time. Big raid guilds should be big by choice, not by necessity. Currently it's the latter, as they need people from different time zones and many members to make sure they'll have 15 in a zone for 3-4 days before the target pops. if they choose to remain big, then that's ultimately something they chose :P

EDIT: Beau, I hope you realize that many don't WANT to camp, they're doing it because they're forced to. It sure as hell ain't fun, and it's not very productive. It's burning people out at an incredible rate, so why are they camping again? Because they want to leave their PC on for 3-4 days even if it doesn't give you a clear advantage at all? No. If camping a zone doesn't give you a drastic advantage then you'd better believe it'd stop.

The only reason to camp with these rules would be because you can't mobilize fast enough, or quite frankly don't care any other targets other than a couple. Even then the camping wouldn't help unless you were #1 on the list.

[astarothel]

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

if you think camping still wont happen no matter what the set rules are you are kidding yourself.

What incentive to camping will there be, when one tracker has as much chance to opt to engage as a group of fifteen?

The only advantage camping would have is that your mobilization time would be shorter, thus giving you more attempts and tries at the target within your window.

[Akame]

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

Windows are +/- 48 hours, and you sometimes see two mobs in a very short amount of time. Big raid guilds should be big by choice, not by necessity. Currently it's the latter, as they need people from different time zones and many members to make sure they'll have 15 in a zone for 3-4 days before the target pops. if they choose to remain big, then that's ultimately something they chose :P

Well currently it produces results, at the moment we're all trying to force them to conform to player rules outside of game mechanics because everyone else wants a shot too.

[astarothel]

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

What is going to keep members of DA from disbanding and calling themselves a Pug?

See the section on List Manipulation. The punishments are _not_ very pleasant at all. Your quandry is also the reason for the raid composition numbers and one week wait in period as written right now.

There's possibly better solutions to handle this sort of thing, but it definitely did come up in discussion with a few people.

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

how is this fair to guilds with twice the population as other guilds who are only allowed a chance at loot as often as guilds half their size? Are they expected to just "deal with it" when they can mobilize double raids at the moment?

Two raid targets pop almost simultaneously? More trackers so more targets covered? There's a couple reasons large guilds are still viable.

[Akame]

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

See the section on List Manipulation. The punishments are _not_ very pleasant at all. Your quandry is also the reason for the raid composition numbers and one week wait in period as written right now.

There's possibly better solutions to handle this sort of thing, but it definitely did come up in discussion with a few people.

Two raid targets pop almost simultaneously? More trackers so more targets covered? There's a couple reasons large guilds are still viable.

Right but they aren't allowed to go after both mobs correct? Are you expecting the GM's to remove the 48 hour variance on the mobs?

[Kainzo]

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

Glad you took time out of your day to troll a valid topic in Server Chat forum.

Stating something is wrong or flawed without support or reasoning =/ an argument or discussion. Keep attempted flames out of this thread unless you are going to actually support your claims not just make them and vanish.

Well, I actually had a well thought out reply but I jumped the gun and hit the first line, I'm at work, I read these forums leisurely until a call comes in.

I'll go ahead and opt not to post what I had spent the last 20 mins writing, because it obviously will fall on deaf ears.

In short, any system is better than no system at all, this is true. However, which system is chosen is best decided by the guilds who are doing the targets day in and day out. Something the leadership should decide on. A de facto system is already in, its just not really anything, anyone likes. I also propose a FFA system, a chaotic harmony if you will, so that the deciding factors, the ones who kill the targets, can gain much needed perspective to see what they would rather be doing.

It will give a chance for the guilds attempting these targets to see that a compromise must be met or continued conflict will result. Temporary anarchy is usually a good thing for things such as this. Pain, or wasted time/loss of items, is needed to have a clear unbiased union for all parties.

Something like this should not be enforced by the server staff either, it should be community based, as it was in classic.