First Aggro + 15

[Bumamgar]

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.

Exactly. My guild on Errollisi Marr (Cries of Insurrection) ended the Venril Sathir/Trakanon rotation by simply ignoring it. The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time. The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.

Any non-GM enforced rotation on this server would suffer the same fate, and likely not even last a full cycle.

[astarothel]

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

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

certainly true, perhaps I should have let that statement stand. I was just trying to provoke further useful discussion... which apparently I did given the rest of your post.

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

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)

Sitting actually on the spawn point is one possible strategy, but ultimately, I think people will back off out of aggro range from the spawn precisely because of the reasons you cite. If guilds A, B, and C all have people sitting on the spawn point, initial random aggro is on a player from guild A totally randomly, then guilds B and C lose out, and possibly lose members to AE dmg or early bouncing aggro before a tank gets secured on it. This means that if Guild A ultimately fails, guilds B and C will be in a worse position to contest for the next shot since they will have had players die with little prospect for a res and rebuff until Guild A wipes or wins. On the other hand, if someone from Guild A has initial aggro and Guild B "picks it up" in the initial melee, then grats Guild B, you just got banned... should have paid more attention to the initial aggro message. Either through pre-meditated reasoning, or trial and error, I think most raid forces will quickly conclude that sitting on the spawn point gives at best a random shot at initial aggro as opposed to a skill based chance (reaction time) for standing off.... UPDATE: I have refined the rule to be more precise about handling this situation.

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

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".

I agree. I'll work on making the language more precise. UPDATE: Done, see main post

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

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.

I did not spell this out. The rule doesn't specifically account for this, so I will make sure that is rectified in the re-write. My intention was that the mob is Free For All again, but with no additional aggro messages to determine a priority, it could descend into a KS match. I am considering alternatives. I will update the main post when I have reached a conclusion, or at least a more firm proposal. UPDATE: Done, see main post.

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

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

Forgive my ignorance of this situation, but I am not aware of what happened. I don't really want to rehash it in this thread, either though. However, much like camping, this is not an all or nothing proposition. I never expected my rule to eliminate all camping or all KSing. I think it is foolish to expect that from any proposal. Some of it is going to happen. The question is "would it be reduced to a level acceptable to the devs and the playerbase?"

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

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").

This is moderated by the similar penalties for false accusations. Under my suggestions, when a petition is made for a KSing or Training violation over a raid target, someone is getting banned, either the petitioner, or the person being petitioned about. Those are high stakes, and they will make people think twice before just crying foul. As a potential petitioner, a player better be sure the logs will back him up and/or consider running fraps.

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

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.

Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.

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

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.

I predict the behavior that results in a petition to the GMs will decrease with my ruleset. You believe it will not. We are assessing something about the situations differently. So be it.

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

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.

Sure, "will increase for that period of time" is a nice turn of phrase to make it sound like I am supporting an increase of camping, but we've had guilds camping one spawn for 3+ days... 72 hours... that's what I've heard anyway, I sure as hell wasn't parked in one zone for that long. To me, there is no way to slice a 6 to 12 hour window of camping which involves people keeping their eyeballs on the screen and being actively at the controls so that it becomes "more camping" or "less acceptable" to most raiders on this server than rotations of 15+ people from multiple guilds sitting in a zone for 72+ hours. My plan reduces and changes camping from the status quo.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Example pertains to a straight rotation, rather than the dynamic rotation as presented in SK. Also, thought we weren't going to talk about rotations here :3

What would be different about a player enforced SK rotation that would prevent the same behavior from happening?

I concede the point, rotations are going to be talked about. I suppose there is no harm having the discussion here.

[astarothel]

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

Explain this please? I have predicted that the volume of requests for GM assistance will decrease as the playerbase adjusts to the new realities of this ruleset, but I never suggested or implied that the GMs would or should stop enforcing the rules each time and every time. Far from it. It is precisely the deterrent of the punishment and the knowledge that the GMs are willing (and consistent) about delivering it that makes the deterrent work.

Frontloaded: the work they will need to do at the onset is significantly more than they should have to do throughout the rest of the duration.

Training and KSing have always been serious offenses under the server rules.

We cannot expect the GMs to be any more vigilant now than they have been in the past over these issues simply because a new ruleset for raiding is instituted that places emphasis upon more severe punishment. The most we could hope for really is that they would levy harsher penalties upon the guilty.

Is the frontloaded weight of the system going to pay off? Do the GMs have the time? That is the concern a number of people have.

==

Here's why Bumamgar's situation of a straight rotation is not necessarily best applied toward a dynamic rotation.

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

The list had gotten up to 6 guilds I believe and the server was in Velious by this time.

6 guilds is a lot in a straight rotation, but in a dynamic rotation like SK where you are responsible for tracking your targets, not so much.

Vellious is a long ways away and a straight rotation with so many targets is messy. Eww.

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

The rotation had long since passed usefulness, and the top two guilds never even bothered to kill these mobs during their slot because they didn't need the loot anymore. They just kept their spot in the rotation in case they got an app who needed epic drops or teeth for VP keying.

In a dynamic rotation like SK, the higher end guilds will be prioritizing their kill targets. The reason they would be passing is for a shot at a better target down the line. When a raid target spawns in a dynamic rotation like SK someone will almost always be there to take it, so there is no risk of it not being killed or going to waste.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Originally Posted by Bumamgar

CoI ignored the rotation and kept VS and Trak on lockdown for a complete cycle, out-mobilizing the complacent rotation guilds and causing a shit-storm on the forums, but no in-game repercussions at all. After that the rotation died.

This is the part of what Bum said that I was talking about. While the guilds involved in a SK rotation would be more vigilant for sure, there is no stopping a guild from outside the rotation from crashing the party and taking (or trying to take) mobs, and without GM enforcement of the SK rotation, there is nothing to prevent a guild from staying out of the SK agreement (or a motivated PUG who didn't like the idea of the rotation).

[Taluvill]

As awesome as this idea sounded in the other forum, it just changes camping for 4 days into camping for 12 hours, and instead of safe spots its spawn points and you hope you get first aggro.

No ill will meant, but this shit ain't gonna work boss.

Edit: and I read the whole thread. Rotation will NOT work unless its gm enforced, and Suicide kings is pretty nifty for sure.

[girth]

Even if all it did was to change camping so its not done 3 days ahead of time and force people camping at a spawn point to not be afk(nobody will AFK at boss spawn points), then I would consider this a success.

Nobody would camp a spawn for days if you don't have to be the FIRST raid force in the zone. If its just a race to agro the mob, people will show up when they need to.

That is 50000000000000000000000000000000000x better.

[Combo]

Just instance the damn things, make everything NODROP, and get it over with.

It's 100% unclassic, but it's what every damn moron that makes another thread about raid rules secretly wants.

[girth]

No we don't. We play this 10 year old game because the raiding of non-instanced bosses THAT YOU MUST COMPETE OVER is about the most fun you can have in the endgame of a PvE game.

Instanced zones are not fun. I remember my whole guild bitching and moaning every time we had to do Plane of Time. If it wasn't for the mass quantities of amazing loot, I'd say that's one of my least favorite zones in that expansion. The only reason it was bearable IMO at the time was the sheer amount of raid bosses/loot.

No matter what you say, if you play a PvE game for the high-end, its not about the boss you're killing, its about competing with the next person. If you only have 1 boss between multiple guilds, the competition is who gets the boss. If each guild has their own instanced boss, the competition is who can kill their boss first.

The only difference is the losers get their mob/loot too in instanced zones. That makes winning less fun.