Server Raid Rules - New and Improved

[Skope]

Yea, that is sort of my point. It does in a way eliminate some camping and create more chances due to wipe, but i can guarantee you /petitions will go through the roof.

[nilbog]

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

So we can leap frog guilds clearing fear for CT right? Need zone / boss specific rules.

I'd prefer that your guilds/raids came to a general agreement so that we do not have to make a maze of rules that no one likes. 2 out of 3 golems claims CT? A raid actively working on a linked script has claim until wipe? There's two suggestions that are not rules yet.

The way the new rules read would be if a golem is unengaged, then it's first to engage. If CT is unengaged, then CT is first to engage.

The rules are subject to changes or amendments as needed. I'd prefer to keep them to a minimum.

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

A what-if situation:

Guild A is sitting in SolB with a 15+ raid force. Guild B starts to enter the zone, so Guild A moves into a proper camping position within aggro radius of Nagafen's spawn point to claim rights to the mob.

Time passes. At some point Guild C and Guild D enter the zone.

When Nagafen spawns, the environment looks like this:
-Guild A is in aggro range (with 15 in the Lair, and another 15 or so outside the area, around the wall).
-Guild B, Guild C and Guild D all have 15+ in Tranix's throne room, not interfering with Guild A.

So, Guild A gets aggro (rightful, clear claim), but cannot hold aggro consistently due to AFKs (the idea was to pull Naggy back to the wall as per the common tactic). Small wipe of the first 15 near the spawn. Naggy resets. The other guilds rush forward.

Are all four guilds now free to aggro him and lay claim? How can they possibly tell who engages him first when 50 people zerg the dragon immediatey after the first guild temporarily loses aggro?

If Guild A wipes due to its members being afk, this is an example of why afk camping won't work now. It opens Nagafen up to anyone that is ready and willing to engage.

4 guilds in the same zone is crazy anyways. Guilds B, C, and D could just leave a tracker in the zone, and call their guild when he pops. This would even give Guild A the chance to cr and try again, if they were the first to re-engage.

If 45+ players simultaneously charged Nagafen, I think it would be pretty fun myself, no need for GMs.

Q: Both raids got here simultaneously. What do we do?
A: In the rare case that both raids feel they got there first than you can work out a compromise on your own.

It's a grey area in the rules.

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

the truth

You win.

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

Wait until a guild leap frogs you for CT while you clear trash then we will see how much you like these rules.

Pay attention what's going on around you? If you see someone fighting a golem, understand that its going to mean CT for someone soon.

We will add more rules if they are needed. I think it is important to at least give you guys a chance to try first to engage.

If you keep wanting more rules, you'll get them, don't worry. I was under the impression you people wanted less rules.

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

It does in a way eliminate some camping and create more chances due to wipe, but i can guarantee you /petitions will go through the roof.

I'd suggest to everyone to not create superfluous petitions. If your guild prepares a petition with evidence against another guild that explicitly shows them violating the rules, they will be banned for a week, weeks, or permanently. If you make a petition with no evidence and waste our time, I have no problem wasting yours. I'd rather depop a mob than listen to 40 people cry about it.


In general, raids need to stop calling for GMs. You guys said you didn't need babysitters, man up and don't fuck it up.

[Humerox]

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

I'd prefer that your guilds/raids came to a general agreement so that we do not have to make a maze of rules that no one likes.

Man. Oh man. THIS was why player rules came out before. Then everyone got jacked and said they were too complicated...but I can GUARANTEE you petitions are going to hit the roof, no matter how much you warn people against it.

You still give everyone too much credit. You want them to act like adults, but they are NEVER going to. Human nature, man.

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

4 guilds in the same zone is crazy anyways. Guilds B, C, and D could just leave a tracker in the zone, and call their guild when he pops. This would even give Guild A the chance to cr and try again, if they were the first to re-engage.

Remember what we all said about camping for days? Crazy...just too crazy to happen.

There's going to be a need for player rules again...I can see it coming. If the guilds have enough fortitude to get together and work things out...it would be beneficial to support those rules. That would limit GM involvement. The players are smart enough to realize what should and shouldn't be done...but the problem has ALWAYS been nitpicking, using gray areas to advantage, and generally a shitstorm of QQ.

The problem with player rules before was they were not supported. Something can't be supported and unenforced. Once the players DO come up with something, post it and forget it. Let the guilds work it out.


I do appreciate what you guys have done though...it makes things much, much better for the server.

Bravo!!!!!!!

[getsome]

Nilbog,

Thank you!

[mmiles8]

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

You still give everyone too much credit. You want them to act like adults, but they are NEVER going to. Human nature, man.

Human nature can be worked in favor of less rules. It just has to be more attractive than leaning on rules as a crutch. Path of least resistance and all that.

[Webwolf]

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

In general, raids need to stop calling for GMs. You guys said you didn't need babysitters, man up and don't fuck it up.

I love the above answer. I hope you instruct the GMs not to interfere unless there is clear proof of foul play involved. It's funny how some people in this thread can't grasp the concept of FFA. Stop asking "what if" questions, there is no what if in FFA. Its pretty simple, the guild who manages to engage first wins.

As far as CT goes the best thing would be not to have the entire zone respawn with him. That would avoid alot of drama.

[Bumamgar]

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

As far as CT goes the best thing would be not to have the entire zone respawn with him. That would avoid alot of drama.

It's been that way for a long time....

[Humerox]

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

I love the above answer. I hope you instruct the GMs not to interfere unless there is clear proof of foul play involved. It's funny how some people in this thread can't grasp the concept of FFA. Stop asking "what if" questions, there is no what if in FFA. Its pretty simple, the guild who manages to engage first wins.

As far as CT goes the best thing would be not to have the entire zone respawn with him. That would avoid alot of drama.

Be great if it WAS FFA, but it's not. It's a modified FTE. "It's pretty simple" sounds fine, until you have six guilds in zone in a bitch-fest about who engaged with the first 15 after Guild A wiped.

UNLESS...the 15 FTE is only for the first guild. If it's FFA after that...oh hell...now that would be fun. (This is a what-if...:P)

The "what ifs" are what's been causing the f'n problems from the beginning. GM's are going to be called in...the only time I think the petitions probably slowed down is when the poopsocking started and everyone just gave up, lol.

[Webwolf]

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

It's been that way for a long time....

I said have the zone trash NOT respawn with him. Right now the entire zone respawns when CT pops and changing that would avoid guilds being leapfrogged while killing trash to clear the zone for CT.

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

Be great if it WAS FFA, but it's not. It's a modified FTE.

To me its pretty damn close to FFA except there is a few guidelines. I wish there was no mention to a 15 man rule at all but this is so much better than the old rules so that its good enough. People need to stop thinking about a way to camp it, there is no reason to camp in FFA. Nilbog used the sitting at the spawn point as an example and people are already thinking in a way to do just that. It will be funny when they wipe on a boss spawn and another guild comes in and take it from them.

[Samuel]

Agreed, Skope.

The guilds fighting for raid mobs want to be the best, want to gear their members and want to prevent other guilds from taking raid mobs from their guild.

Just because the rules are being changed and poopsocking will become more difficult doesn't mean guilds are going to get along and act civilly when competing for a target.