Leapfrogging

[azeth]

Accountability for breaking a pre established raid rule should mirror whatever punishment a KS warrants.

[mmiles8]

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

agreements are all well and good, most us of would agree thats whats best. But what happens when one guild breaks the agreement? Whats that accountability look like?

Here's how policy was, by the book. I've trimmed the parts that are irrelevant like funny names and bad language, and bolded the parts that answer your question. Above all else, the point that I'd most like to illustrate, is that when this policy is enforced consistently - across the board, and to the letter - no one likes the RNG, and they choose to work amongst themselves to find a mutually agreeable solution.

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints

When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

8.2.3.1 The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

8.2 Disruption

8.2.1 Disruption is defined as any activity that is disruptive to the game play of others, though not necessarily with the intent to do so. Disruption has been sub-categorized into major and minor types.

8.2.1.2 Examples of Major Disruption:

Zone/Area Disruption – monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area rather than stealing from a specific player or group of players, deliberately blocking a doorway or narrow area so other players can’t get past, refusing to cooperate with the other parties at a contested spawn site after having been instructed to do so by a CS Representative

8.2.2 Disruption Procedures

8.2.2.1 Disruption is the most difficult problem to deal with, as the accused are frequently not doing it with the intention of disrupting, but simply having fun or behaving as they wish. The key to dealing with Disruption situations is to defuse them with as little customer aggravation as possible.

8.2.2.2 When a Disruption petition comes in, the process is as follows:
• Identify the complainer and the suspected antagonist. Document their character name, level, zone, and account name.
• Go to the zone in question, remaining invisible and anonymous, being sure not to tell
the petitioner you are coming.
• Bring a fellow Guide if possible, preferably invisible and /anon.
• Observe the behavior in question and that of those complaining.
• If there is no problem with the behavior as you and your fellow Guide see it, then explain this to the complainer and close the petition.

8.2.2.3 If it is not possible to distinguish which behavior is worse, the accuser or the accused, engage both groups.

8.2.2.4 If it appears that the accused is being intentionally disruptive,
• Gather information.
• Engage the accused, explain that their behavior is disruptive, and issue a warning. Tell the accused to stop the behavior, then disengage from the incident.
• Do NOT argue or debate the incident with the accused. Do not discuss the incident past what is required to explain the nature of the disruption to them.
• Take note of everything said by the accused and add it to the documentation.
• Record the incident in the abuse database and in the customer's soulmark (using the /warn command) for further review.

8.2.2.5 If the accused is obviously being disruptive, but not necessarily intentionally,
• Engage the accused.
• Attempt to convince the accused to cease the activity, explaining that it is disruptive.

8.2.2.6 If the customer becomes confrontational, treat the issue as if it were intentional, described above.

8.2.2.7 For minor disruptions, three warnings will be issued. The perpetrator will then be suspended for a minimum period of three days. For major disruptions, two warnings will be issued, followed by suspension for a discretionary period with a one-week minimum. The next major disruption offense following suspension for major disruption will result in the player being banned.

Yes, everyone will have their own personal anecdote of support staff who didn't follow protocol. There was a reason Guides were eventually forbidden from handling disputes, and plenty of GMs who got canned. But that's what happens at 8 bits an hour. Xev was a tight ship, and you can see what happens when it's run like one, from fastboy's post above.

Ok I'm done editing now.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Originally Posted by mmiles8 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fastboy21 could not be a better testimonial to using the GM's policies from live.

Xev was where I was a Guide. It had a kickass SMT that cared, was professional, and went by the book.

I also did most of my early raiding on Xev (and came from Povar). I was not high enough to be in the raiding game during classic. I did just a couple of Naggy/Vox raids before Kunark got rolling, but by mid Kunark and all of Velious I was an active raider in Honored Circle (a decided second tier guild) and the The Hand (I felt we were the 3rd best guild on the server behind Harmonium and Altera Vita).

Even as a third place guild we got out mobs. I don't remember much leapfrogging at all. We all just understood that it would reflect on our reputation as a guild and would come back 10 fold if we tried to be asshats. We would hang out and follow others in some times to see if they would wipe. Some times if we had followed another guild in as they killed trash and they stopped for a long time to talk strategy and med, we would give them a short warning (like, engage in 3 min or we will). Anyway, the specifics don't matter so much.

As mmiles8 pointed out, we knew that if we could not work things out on our own, a gm or guide would show up and /ran 100. Nothing sucks worse than that, having the mob doled out randomly instead of on merit. So we settled on behavioral norms for the server, not in a grand guild council meeting, but just through the collective self centered actions of each party... good ol' invisible hand, Adam Smith stuff. That's not to say that we would reach the exact same equilibrium here on P99, but we would find some balance point.

[azeth]

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

As mmiles8 pointed out, we knew that if we could not work things out on our own, a gm or guide would show up and /ran 100. Nothing sucks worse than that, having the mob doled out randomly instead of on merit. So we settled on behavioral norms for the server, not in a grand guild council meeting...

This ^. It's as if you could bypass the entire "strategy for resolving raid disputes" by implementing a rock solid consequence such as /random 100. In a situation where a dispute arises due to leapfrogging and a guide/GM shows up, allow the guide/GM to determine a time frame that an agreement must be reached between the guilds involved (something like 5-10 minutes). If both parties have not agreed by that time - /random 100.

"Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure."

[Cyrano]

GMs rarely got involved on my server, usually only if there was a bug. Our server used a first to engage agreement but it was never explicitly written out in a rule set. There were plenty of time where Guild A was preparing and Guild B came in to Leapfrog, so they just both attacked the same mob and whoever got the loot won.

Ninja Looting and repeated training on the other hand did get GM involvement, perma-bans IIRC.

[Molitoth]

On tribunal we only had 2-3 guild that were raid worthy. We all respected each other and if another guild was already assembled in the zone... we let them have it.

There were a few run-ins where both guilds assembled at the same time, and to solve it we had one person from each guild duel it out.


If people on this server would quit being such douchebags, everything should be fine.

For instance, guild A breaks fear (smoothly) the other day and then guild B zergs in after the fact to steal most of the zone mobs.... lame.

[ziggyholiday]

First to have X amount of players in zone shouldn't matter at all unless that amount is what it takes to take the mob out.

First to have the raid force required to kill the mob AND pulling trash should have first go at the mob. The other raid(s) can sit and watch them down the mob or fail and pick it up after them.

Setting something up like "first to have 15 in zone gets mob" is retarded because people will stay in that zone with the min required for as long as it takes. Additionally just because you can handle trash doesn't mean you can handle the boss.

If it takes 30+ to kill target A then the first guild in zone and pulling trash with 30+ gets first try.

[Noleafclover]

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

First to have X amount of players in zone shouldn't matter at all unless that amount is what it takes to take the mob out.

First to have the raid force required to kill the mob AND pulling trash should have first go at the mob. The other raid(s) can sit and watch them down the mob or fail and pick it up after them.

Setting something up like "first to have 15 in zone gets mob" is retarded because people will stay in that zone with the min required for as long as it takes. Additionally just because you can handle trash doesn't mean you can handle the boss.

If it takes 30+ to kill target A then the first guild in zone and pulling trash with 30+ gets first try.

The reason the numbers are presently 15 is BECAUSE that's about the amount for almost all present raid bosses.

I like keeping timers for post-boss spawns 'cause that keeps things moving, people shouldn't be allowed to leisurely clear trash and wait an hour and a half for 60+ people to show up.

And as for the second-to-last paragraph, Rogean said he had a change planned for before the mob. Since we currently camp, any change would presumably be to something other than poopsocking.

Most importantly, I hereby demand the forum spellchecker recognize "poopsocking."

[owenh]

on the rathe server we had a calender that all the other big guilds shared and on x day it was our turn for fear (whatever ) and if we wiped any of the other raid guilds that could get a force up could come do it. BoTs was the biggest guild and the shadiest and they respected the arrangement too... there was never any big problems with ks'ing or leapfrogging. granted we were a smaller raid guild so we only got like 2 shots a month at fear and 2 for hate but after kunark and velious that wasn't an issue anymore

[Tork]

In LoS, we called it steamrolling - and we liked it.

On the face of things, I have no issue with it - contention, competition and conflict made EQ a better game - nothing was a lock, and if you wanted it, you had enough unemployed college kids who could count to 3 and press CH, you took it.

Rotation, sharing and other such words are best saved for internet porn.