Suicide Kings Raid Proposal

[Cyrano]

Couple things to say here:

1) Whoever called that guy a flamer for saying Suicide Kings as a loot system was flawed is missing the point of why the original Suicide Kings was developed in the first place. Later in EQ, and notably in WoW, guilds must clear through various easy targets to get to the "good loot bosses". Guilds that use DKP often had to deal with upgrade attrition due to people hording DKP, thus rather than helping themselves and the guild by taking minor upgrades they would let items rot in order to maintain higher DKP ranking. Suicide Kings offset this by not punishing the lower value members on upgrades, if you're at the bottom of the SC list why not take every minor mainset and offset item right (whereas in DKP you could go into an endless hole)? Once you catch up in gear you can start biding your time to climb up the list.

The reason Suicide Kings is flawed for this server is because we do not have that attrition with raid mobs. We currently have a handful of targets with two tiers; Gods/Dragons on the upper half and Draco/Maestro on the lower. As such, there are a ton of people fighting for a few things whereas Suicide Kings was meant to get people to take items who NEEDED them, not determine who should lay claim when multiple people or groups were arguing over said claim.

2) I have yet to see a PUG legitimately compete for anything on this server. As it stands now if you guys wanted to make a 200 person pug to camp something you could do it, there is no room for that on this form of Suicide Kings.

What this tells me is that people championing the PUG corollary need to realize that your time will come (as has already been stated) when the raiders move to level 60 and go after Kunark and Velious. Do you really think IB and DA will spend their time competing for Maestro/Draco or a level 52 capped Naggy/Vox?

3) This is a rotation whether you want to admit it or not and completely takes out the competition aspect of it unless there is certain collusion leading to the FFA scenario which, by your standards, is against the rules. Going forward with the collusion, if IB or DA can do certain mobs with roughly 20 people and we now have 40+ active members, why shouldn't we be able to splinter off into two guilds? Why is a guild merger considered acceptable but a separation is not?

4) What we need are less rules, not more. This system will lead to more waiting, arguing, and ultimately less killing all in the name of what? Keeping a headache for the GMs? I have a solution for the GMs - STOP LISTENING TO PETITIONS OR COMPLAINTS ABOUT PLAYER RULES - if there isn't blatant training, ksing, or cheating the GMs really shouldn't be involved and those going to pester them should be ignored. If you want to talk about saving GMs time, think of all the finger pointing that will go along with issues of collusion for SC. According this system GMs will check logs and parses... we know the nature of the server so who's going to stop everyone from pointing fingers anytime a boss is up? And then what happens when the GMs become disconnected and stop enforcing it and true collusion runs rampant due to their lack of involvement?

5) The time constraints are ridiculous. Two hours to clear Naggy or Vox? And who is going to be there to police whether or not the guild attempting a target is compromised of the correct percentage of members? What's to stop a guild from simply tagging random pickup people to keep their side of the deal kosher?

Asto you know I like you, but this idea is not a fit for P99. We simply have too many knowledgeable players with a wealth of experience. In my opinion who gets what mob should come down to dedication; not a pseudo-rotation. Currently dedication is measured in time sitting a mob, will that change? I imagine it will, but this doesn't seem to be the answer.

[astarothel]

Going to address a couple of Cyrano's points.

First, SK DKP and SK for a raid rotation written it are quite obviously different. I wanted to offer a way to change the current state of raiding as it stands right now.

The simplest way to deter camping would be to offer it no advantage in a ruleset. Even if the camping were agreed upon to be stopped right now, another guild in three weeks might try it and it simply escalates right back to camping and countercamping.

Right now camping guilds are /randoming when something pops, or making an unofficial rotation. Despite often being that guy with the horseshoe up his ass (See: Sunday) I think there's a better way to handle who gets to go. A dynamic list allows for some degree of prioritization of targets to take place between tiered mobs.

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

As it stands now if you guys wanted to make a 200 person pug to camp something you could do it, there is no room for that on this form of Suicide Kings.

Sure there is. They can wait their week just like every other raid group that wants in does.

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

This is a rotation whether you want to admit it or not and completely takes out the competition aspect of it unless there is certain collusion leading to the FFA scenario which, by your standards, is against the rules.

Don't see how it gets rid of competition. It's actually the exact same as what is happening right now, except you only need one tracker there to roll rather than one tracker and 14 other semi afk people.

As for collusion and list manipulation it had specifically to do with me being worried groups on the list would create secondary smurf groups in order to get more chances in. "This is totally our raid group we suicided with. What do you mean there's only actually 5 of us in the guild and everyone else is from another raiding group on the list". I will review that section of the proposal and word it better.

You could try and convince everyone to pass to make it go to FFA if you really wanted, except there's not much benefit to actually passing for the last group on the list represented there. I don't really see _that_ as collusion, since it offers no advantage.

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

if IB or DA can do certain mobs with roughly 20 people and we now have 40+ active members, why shouldn't we be able to splinter off into two guilds?

If crossover between the two wasn't likely I wouldn't really see a problem with it, except that it would be. You'd basically be given twice the number of spots on the list.

In short, if IB split into two separate entities for some reason and pursued separate raiding that would be one thing, but if they split into IB1 and IB2 with overlap in their Suicide Listed raids it wouldn't be kosher.

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

Why is a guild merger considered acceptable but a separation is not?

I already explained why separations could be perceived as a problem.
The merger would actually be removing one or more entities from the Suicide List altogether.

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

What we need are less rules, not more. This system will lead to more waiting, arguing, and ultimately less killing

This entire concept started as six lines. It is players seeking nonstop loopholes in everything that made me have to spell out every single minute detail and possibility. They'll seek loopholes in any system used, it won't matter.

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

think of all the finger pointing that will go along with issues of collusion for SC. According this system GMs will check logs and parses... we know the nature of the server so who's going to stop everyone from pointing fingers anytime a boss is up? And then what happens when the GMs become disconnected and stop enforcing it and true collusion runs rampant due to their lack of involvement?

The GMs' only major role in SK was just like it is now -- to ensure that people who train and interfere are accounted for.

You took far too broad an account for collusion as I mentioned earlier. Their role in List Manipulation would only be to look out for smurf guilds essentially giving away their suicide.

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

The time constraints are ridiculous. Two hours to clear Naggy or Vox?

That includes any time to get there, so for Voxx that's getting to Perma. Two hours for an encounter seems like a lot now, but as I said it is a cushion for a multitude of things. In Sky it would certainly be nice to get in multiple attempts on things for learning purposes. One and outs are going to be very painful with new content, especially if theres as many surprises in store for us as Aeolwind has promised.

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

And who is going to be there to police whether or not the guild attempting a target is compromised of the correct percentage of members? What's to stop a guild from simply tagging random pickup people to keep their side of the deal kosher?

The raid percentages were there as all I could think of to stop any aforementioned smurfing suicides. If anyone has a better idea, feel free to let me know.

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

In my opinion who gets what mob should come down to dedication; not a pseudo-rotation. Currently dedication is measured in time sitting a mob

If camping a mob with 15+ people is dedication, then I won't be dedicated -- I will find another way to enjoy my time on P1999 aside from raiding, either with alts or research and tradeskill implementation.

[Cyrano]

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

This entire concept started as six lines. It is players seeking nonstop loopholes in everything that made me have to spell out every single minute detail and possibility. They'll seek loopholes in any system used, it won't matter.

And it won't stop so long as you keep putting in rules, that's the nature of this server.

The solution is FFA with perma-banning for blatant and repeated training, ks'ing, and cheating.

[kaos057]

When I heard about this server I was excited. Could it be true? The EQ that was actually fun all over again? Then I saw this thread. I don't even want to install the game now. You claim that this is classic EverQuest but Verant never had any kind of rotation list on any servers. In your FAQ you should put something more like "Classic EQ the way we think it should have been." At least then people won't get the wrong impression.

[Extunarian]

Originally Posted by kaos057 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When I heard about this server I was excited. Could it be true? The EQ that was actually fun all over again? Then I saw this thread. I don't even want to install the game now. You claim that this is classic EverQuest but Verant never had any kind of rotation list on any servers. In your FAQ you should put something more like "Classic EQ the way we think it should have been." At least then people won't get the wrong impression.

It's a good thing this guy didn't join, considering everyone on this server gets started as fully geared level 50. At the character select screen you simply check either the IB or DA box, then you are immediately transported to your home city of Sol A.

Indeed, a non-binding debate on one of many possible raid plans should certainly be considered a deal breaker.

[G13]

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

And it won't stop so long as you keep putting in rules, that's the nature of this server.

The solution is FFA with perma-banning for blatant and repeated training, ks'ing, and cheating.

People would just sit on the boss spawns spamming bard songs with FFA

The raid encounters in EQ are not designed very well. It's basically one straight shot to each mob through some trash. The only exception is Fear and CT summons every damn mob in the zone if you engage him early.

[Beau]

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

And it won't stop so long as you keep putting in rules, that's the nature of this server.

The solution is FFA with perma-banning for blatant and repeated training, ks'ing, and cheating.

That is what I agree with [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Akame]

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

This entire concept started as six lines. It is players seeking nonstop loopholes in everything that made me have to spell out every single minute detail and possibility. They'll seek loopholes in any system used, it won't matter.

Until you get to page six typed with all the addendum's added it probably won't be functioning properly. You MUST address every potential loophole when creating a system you expect people to abide by. The civil majority doesn't want to be bad, or cheat, but the civil majority is also LAZY!!! Unless it is addressed it falls in a gray area and gray areas get trampled into the ground in the laziest person's favor.

Originally Posted by kaos057 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When I heard about this server I was excited. Could it be true? The EQ that was actually fun all over again? Then I saw this thread. I don't even want to install the game now. You claim that this is classic EverQuest but Verant never had any kind of rotation list on any servers. In your FAQ you should put something more like "Classic EQ the way we think it should have been." At least then people won't get the wrong impression.

Remember this is just one players suggestion, I think in reality they aren't going to be able to implement any form of list system at all, it goes against the entire nature of EQ and will crumble quickly if implemented, already it's been shown it can't really be used post Kunark, so at best even if every loophole in the system were addressed and the whole thing enforced, you are still talking about only a few months worth of use.

[Erasong]

people keep saying FFA, correct me if im wrong but didnt the devs say they do not want FFA? They feel theyll have to babysit more. It doesnt matter if they will or will not, or if you think they are wrong, or if you have some foolproof way to avoid it. They said no, move on. Its crying spilled milk at this point and if we want to fix the 100% everyone agrees shitty situation right now, people need to wake up and seriously consider other opotions they may not like a lot, but are more viable that lolcampfor4days raiding atm.

[Beau]

I would imagine the gm stance would be something along these lines Elaida-

posted by Nilbog 6/16/2010 -

You misunderstand. I said "we do not care wtf you do" as long as we do not have to hear about it. I *personally* agree with a first to engage type ruleset. The current setup and operation of things do not allow for this. We want to make EQ, not mitigate your raids. You could all mutually agree to settle your disputes with PVP for all we care. You could impose a first to engage scenario on each other based on your own logs. The issue is whether or not it is brought to us. When you summon a guide or GM, expect results based on our server rules.

With 6ish raid targets and your huge guilds, I assume some degree of camping would still be happening. It amazes me that there are so few guilds for so many people. You could create competition with yourselves if you made new guilds.

We need a solution that makes sense. *GM-enforced* rotations make no sense to me. Player-made ones do, if that's what you want. GMs should be used for extraordinary circumstances but are presently being called for petty disputes over who gets what pixels.

Is there not a poet amongst you? Designate an ambassador and talk to your rival guild.