First Aggro + 15

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

You said that guilds don't get anything for joining in a rotation. And the truth is they do. 1. They get more free time, unless they want to sit around waiting for a wipe. 2. As long as they are able to kill a target, they are almost guaranteed a certain amount of loot.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

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

As for policing it, Reputation is big in classic EQ and if a majority agree to something the few who don't will suffer the consequences. It's one thing for a guild on guild fight when both have a claim to something. It's quite another to breech an agreement held by the servers guilds.

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

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

But I do agree, getting the powers of the server to agree to something would be a major obstacle. It would take the guild leaders of each raid ready guild coming to an agreement.

Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

[Fahn]

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

Putting something like this into play will lean people towards collusion. I'm not so sure I want all of the top guilds working together and keeping everything to themselves in nice neat little orders. It sounds like a nice way to get along right now, but what happens when Kunark comes out and they're all camping your epic mobs in neat little rotations and threaten you with raiding rules and gm intervention if you don't let them keep their rotation. Controlled by them, leaning the lists in their favor, it just doesn't work.

Absolutely right, moreover a strong exclusive rotation will discourage other guilds from becoming raiders. As a leader of an up and coming guild this does not bode well for me.

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Any agreement between guilds should only between the guilds, no GM involved. And it would be up to the character of the players to allow for variations to the rule. Something I hope that could happen.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

I think the amount of debate going on and the vast differences in opinion expressed indicates there is no 'bulletproof argument'. ... and I imagine the matter will be (or perhaps should be) decided by which manner of compromise is the most reasonable and/or has the most popular support and provides the least amount of work for GMs.

Certainly, peoples' preferences are varied. I never expected that everyone will convert to the same preference. However, what is not strictly a matter of opinion, what can be analyzed and predicted are the consequences of a set of rules. The accuracy of these predictions can be argued logically. Then the consequences can be debated for their desirability.

Really though, I suppose my argument is mostly targeted at the devs since I am proposing rules changes and not pushing for an agreement between players. Whatever players agree on above and beyond the server rules is nice and all, but ultimately, such agreements are not the end all be all of player behavior. Some players are not constrained by other players' agreements, but only by the rules. I posted publicly though because I wanted to draw on the collective intelligence of the playerbase (or at least he segment that reads the forums) to refine my idea, pick out any holes in it, and also to gives the devs an impression of what various types of players think about it.

[Leokaiser]

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

However I would have to say that within the confines of FFA, If a powerful guild wants the mob, what can I do that would prevent them from getting that anyway?

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

[Fahn]

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you if the rotation is not GM enforced. The guilds don't get free time because they have to defend "their" mobs from the raid forces that don't subscribe to the rotation. They will sometimes lose those mobs as well, which means they are not guaranteed any loot.

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!
Any rotation would have to be agreed upon by ALL raiding guilds. A feat likely impossible as you have said. That is the only way to assure that everyone gets something out of it.

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What consequences could the rest of the community enforce on a raid guild powerful and organized enough to take raid targets from the rotation members? The rotation members won't group with them in KC or sebilis? The rotation members won't buy/sell with them? I can't conceive of anything the rotation members could do within the bounds of server rules that would dissuade those who want to compete for mobs and ignore the rotation.

A guild, providing it is one and not several, who do not comply with the rotation would simply be removed from it and the other guilds would have to come together to assure they rarely if ever get another raid target again. Until such case as they agree to follow the agreement. This again would require all raiding guilds to be in agreement and the GMs allowing the players to police themselves. And again stating that this is likely impossible. I can only see it happening if the GMs deem it not completely exclusive as to keep up and coming guilds out.

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe we aren't that far off in viewpoint. What I'm really saying is that this notion will never get beyond a hypothetical because there are people on this server that just won't abide a rotational system unless it is GM enforced with significant penalties.

So, as I said... to pursue discussion of a rotation any further, I think someone needs to get a dev to publicly state that they will enforce a rotation. Otherwise, I believe I have demonstrated that a rotation is not workable by providing specific scenarios as counterexamples.

Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

[Fahn]

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

Under this system proposed by Dumesh, it wouldn't matter how 'powerful' (unless by powerful you mean highly coordinated or so vast in size the rewards from a successful boss kill would be spread extremely thin) the guild are; all you would need to do is get ready and tag it first.

Yes, that would mean there is a possibility that other raids would beat you to the punch each and every time. But the main advantage over rotation, as far as I see it, is that you would still have a chance.

The Dev's have specifically mentioned they want to support pugs on the server, and pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system. With first to engage, a pug can show up on the night and beat guild raids to the punch, regardless of what the odds may be.

There are various solutions to these problems, it all depends on how the agreement is crafted. From only certain targets are on the menu. To having an open spot in the rotation to allow PuGs and so on. It all depends on the agreement. And again it would have to be NON-GM enforced, with is nigh impossible I understand.

But with that being said. I like this system for what it is, if the GMs decide to enforce anything, This would be the system. The ideas are refined as far as they are going to get in my opinion.

The only other GM action I could even fathom is if they forced the raiders to come to some sort of an agreement. And I just don't think they can / will for many many reasons.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

First want to say I am sorry if I am derailing your thread, was not my intent!... Aye this is all just talk really about possibilities. The only thing I think we differ on is the # of people who will "abide" a particular system. And for each system there are people who will not abide by it. That all being said, I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

Cool, thanks for going back and forth with me a bit. I think productive arguments should usually be confrontational, just without malice or condescension. Thank you for your contributions. I agree, we aren't far off in viewpoint.

[astarothel]

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you believe it is not superior, would you mind presenting some scenarios that you feel are possible or likely under my rule that illustrate negative outcomes and possibly better alternatives?

I stated that the argument presented by the section I quoted did not make it inherently superior.

That being said, here are some potential issues:

1) Raid groups will camp right on top of the target's spawn location, allowing it to aggro whomever it will the moment it spawns. These camping groups will presumably be less AFK than they are currently, but the issue still remains that they are camping. An extension of this will be the chaos that ensues, and the raid target's corresponding aggro spam line (it aggro'd on them, but WE picked it up, etc)

2) Redo the wording on the core rule itself to be more clear.
You have 'begin the fight' combined with an engagement based upon aggro.

I assume you mean "the first guild to aggro the target (with message indicator going off) has 15 minutes to do 5% damage to the target, and will subsequently be afforded one opportunity to kill the target".

3) What happens if the mob has been aggro'd and kited around for 15 minutes, but the 5% damage has not been done? The raid target will not issue a new aggro message if/when an other raid group (or groups) attempt to engage it.

4) Punishments for KSing or training are already severe. It doesn't necessarily mean it will put a stop to any of it. Evidence: Abacab.

Blaming an entire group for one person's actions is not amazing either. Evidence: Abacab.

"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED DA -- WHAT AN IB LAPDOG"
"OMG ABACAB TOTALLY TRAINED IB -- DA's CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE"

The second any member, or any group gets a ban they (or their guild) will immediately call foul, questioning the GM decision alleging GM favouritism, or the GM was wrong (fallibility usually asserted through claims of "ignorance or incomplete details regarding the situation").

Any ruleset will have elements of this problem. The system as proposed is frontloaded with the need for GM management and there is nothing in place once GMs have stopped babysitting to stop douchebaggery from commencing again starting a whole new cycle. This is why I believe FFA/first to engage is inherently no better for GM time and involvement than any ruleset that is or will be instituted.

5) A smaller spawn variance will only increase the camping for that period of time when the spawn window is open. Whether it is active camping or AFK it is irrelevant, camping will increase during those periods.

[astarothel]

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

pugs are inherantly incompatable with a rotation system.

Not necessarily always the case, a fair ruleset must simply provide for their inclusion. However this is about First to Engage rather than a rotation, so that is all I will say in regards to that.

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

I do like your purposed system! It's all about mobilization.

I don't really see how it is more about mobilization that any other system proposed so far. It offers no solutions to camping as a whole, rather an indirect solution to AFK camping. Any sort of camping is the opposite of mobilization in my eyes.

Any explicit agreement between guilds or groups not to camp people other than trackers will neither last nor hold if it is not directly incorporated into firm ruleset somehow.

[Fahn]

Will yall stop picking on my "Gimme" sentences :/ they are exactly as they are supposed to be. Broad, positive and without merit.

And you are right asta. Any proposed system has a snowballs chance to actually be adopted.